Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/protectionoffursOOunit 



< 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER 




HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 



OF THE 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



JANUARY 3 AND 4, 1912 

ON 

H. R. 16571 

A BILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOV- 
ERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, GREAT BRITAIN, JAPAN, 
AND RUSSIA FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF 
..THE FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER WHICH FREQUENT 
THE WATERS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN, 
CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON, JULY 7, 1911 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 



[Committee room,' gallery floor, west 

1. William Sulzer, Chairman, of New York. . 

2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 

3. John N. .Garner, of Texas. 

4. George S. Legare, of South. Carolina. 

5. William G, Sharp, of Ohio. ■ 
0. Cyrus Cline, of Indiana. 

7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 

8. James M. Curley, of Massachusetts. 

9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 

10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 

11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. 



corridor. Telephone 230. Meets on call.] 

12. Charles M. Stedman, of North Carolina. 

13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 

14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. 

15. David J. Foster, of Vermont. 

16. William B. McKinley, of Illinois. 

17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 

18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jer&ey. 

19. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri. 

20. George W. Fairchild, of New York. 

21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1912 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER 
HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

HOUSE /OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3 AND 4, 1912 
ON 

H. R. 16571 

A BILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOV- 
ERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, GREAT BRITAIN, JAPAN, 
AND RUSSIA FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF 
THE FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER WHICH FREQUENT 
THE WATERS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN, 
CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON, JULY 7, 1911 



COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

[Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230. Meets on call.] 

1. William Sttlzer, Chairman, of New York. 12. Chaeles M. Stedman, of North Carolina. 

2. Henry D. Flood, of Virginia. 13. Edward W. Townsend, of New Jersey. 

3. John N. Garner, of Texas. 14. B. P. Harrison, of Mississippi. 

4. George S. Legare, of South Carolina. 15. David J. Foster, of Vermont. 

5. William G. Sharp, of Ohio. 16. William B. McKtnlet, of Illinois. 

6. Cyrus Cline, of Indiana. 17. Henry A. Cooper, of Wisconsin. 

7. Jefferson M. Levy, of New York. 18. Ira W. Wood, of New Jersey. 

8. James M. Curley, of Massachusetts. 19. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri. 

9. John Charles Linthicum, of Maryland. 20. George W. Fatrchild, of New^York. 

10. Robert E. Difenderfer, of Pennsylvania. 21. N. E. Kendall, of Iowa. 

11. W. S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1912 






v 



% 



: . 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 



Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, January 3, 1912. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Sulzer (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will take up for consideration this 
morning H. R. 16571, introduced by me, entitled "An act to give 
effect to the convention between the Governments of the United 
States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia, for the preservation and 
protection of the fur seals and sea otter which frequent the waters 
of the north Pacific Ocean, concluded at Washington July 7, 1911." 
The bill reads as follows : 

[H. R, 16571, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] 

A BILL To give effect to the convention between the Governments of the United States, 
Great Britain, Japan, and Russia for the preservation and protection of the fur seals 
and sea otter which frequent the waters of the north Pacific Ocean, concluded at Wash- 
ington July seventh, nineteen hundred and eleven. 

Whereas the plenipotentiaries of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and 
Russia did, on the seventh day of July, anno Domini nineteen hundred and 
eleven, enter into a- convention for the preservation and protection of the 
fur seals and sea otter which frequent the waters of the north Pacific Ocean, 
which convention was subsequently ratified by the Governments of the United 
States, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia and the exchange of ratifications 
thereof was effected on the twelfth day of December, nineteen hundred and 
eleven : Now, therefore, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That no citizen of the United States, 
nor person owing duty of obedience to the laws or the treaties of the United 
States, nor any of their vessels, nor any vessel of the United States, nor any per- 
son belonging to or on board of such vessel, shall kill, capture, or pursue, at any 
time or in any manner whatever, any fur seal in the waters of the north Pacific 
Ocean north of the thirtieth parallel of north latitude and including the seas 
of Bering, Kamchatka, Okhotsk, and Japan ; nor shall any such person or vessel 
kill, capture, or pursue sea otter in any of the waters mentioned beyond the 
distance of three miles from the shore line of the territory of the United 
States. 

Sec. 2. That no citizen of the United States, nor person above described 
in the first section, shall equip, use, or employ, or furnish aid in equipping, 
using, or employing, or furnish supplies to any vessel used or employed, or to 
be used or employed, in carrying on or taking part in pelagic sealing in said 
waters, nor shall any of their vessels nor any vessel of the United States be so 
used or employed ; and no person or vessel shall use any of the ports or harbors 
of the United States, or any part of the territory of the United States, for any 
purposes whatsover connected with the operations of pelagic sealing in the 
waters named in the first section of this act; and no vessel which is engaged 
or employed, or intended to be engaged or employed, for or in connection with 
pelagic sealing in such waters shall use any of the ports or harbors or any 
part of the territory of the United States for any purpose whatsoever. 

3 



4 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Sec. 3. That the provisions of the first and second sections of this act shall 
not apply to Indians, Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines dwelling on the coast 
of the waters mentioned in the first section of this act who carry on pelagic 
sealing in canoes or undecked boats propelled wholly by paddles, oars, or sails, 
and not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and manned by 
not more than five persons each, in the way hithereto practiced by the said 
Indians, Aleuts, or other aborigines, and without the use of firearms : Provided, 
however, That the exception made in this section shall not apply to Indians, 
Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines in the employment of other persons or who 
shall kill, capture, or pursue fur seals under contract to deliver the skins to any 
person. 

Sec. 4. That the importation or bringing into territory of the United States, 
by any person whatsoever, of skins of fur seals taken in the waters men- 
tioned in the first section of this act, or of skins identified as those of the 
species known as Callorhinus alascanus, Callorhinus ursinus, and Callorhinus 
kurilensis, or belonging to the American, Russian, or Japanese herds, whether 
raw, dressed, dyed, or manufactured, except such as have been taken under the 
authority of the respective parties to said convention, to which the breeding 
grounds of such herds belong, and have been officially marked and certified as 
having been so taken, is hereby prohibited ; and all such articles imported or 
brought in after this act shall take effect shall not be permitted to be ex- 
ported, but shall be seized and forfeited to the United States. 

Sec. 5. That the President shall have power to make regulations to carry this 
act and the said convention into effect, and from time to time to add to, modify, 
amend, or revoke such regulations, as in his judgment may seem expedient. It 
shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, under the direction of 
the President, to see that the said convention, the provisions of this act, and the 
regulations made thereunder are executed and enforced; and all officers of the 
United States engaged in the execution and enforcement of this act are author- 
ized and directed to cooperate with the proper officers of any of the other par- 
ties to the said convention in taking such measures as may be appropriate and 
available under the said convention, this act, or the regulations made there- 
under for the purpose of preventing pelagic sealing as in this act prohibited. 

Sec. 6. That every person guilty of a violation of the provisions of said con- 
vention, or of this act, or of any regulations made thereunder, shall, for each 
offense, be fined not less than two hundred dollars or more than two thousand 
dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both ; and every vessel, its 
tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, at any time used or employed in violation 
of this act, or of the regulations made thereunder, shall be forfeited to the 
United States. 

Sec. 7. That if any vessel shall be found within the waters to which this act 
applies, having on board fur-seal skins, or bodies of seals, or apparatus or im- 
plements for killing or taking seals, it shall be presumed that such vessel was 
used or employed in the killing of said seals, or that said apparatus or imple- 
ments were used in violation of this act, until the contrary is proved to the 
satisfaction of the court, in so far as such vessel, apparatus, and implements 
are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Sec. 8. That any violation of the said convention, or of this act, or of the 
regulations thereunder, may be prosecuted either in the district court of Alaska, 
or in any district court of the United States in California, Oregon, or Wash- 
ington. 

Sec. 9. That it shall be the duty of the President to cause a guard or patrol 
to be maintained in the waters frequented by the seal herd or herds and sea 
otter, in the protection of which the United States is especially interested, com- 
posed of naval or other public vessels of the United States designated by him 
for such service ; and any officer of any such vessel engaged in such service and 
any other officers duly designated by the President may search any vessel of the 
United States, in port, or in territorial waters of the United States, or on the 
high seas, when suspected of having violated, or being about to violate, the 
provisions of said convention, or of this act, or of any regulations made there- 
under, and may seize such vessel and the officers and crew thereof and bring 
them into the most accessible port of the Territory and States mentioned in the 
eighth section of this act for trial. 

Sec. 10. That any vessel or person described in the first section of this act 
offending or being about to offend against the prohibitions of the said con- 
vention, or of this act, or of the regulations made thereunder, may be seized 
and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of any of the 
parties to the said convention other than the United States, except within the 



PROTECTION OF PUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. ^ 

territorial jurisdiction of one of the other of said parties, on condition, however, 
that when such vessel or person is so seized and detained by officers of any 
party other than the United States such vessel or person shall be delivered as 
soon as practicable at the nearest point to the place of seizure, with the wit- 
nesses and proofs necessary to establish the offense so far as they are under 
the control of such party, to the proper official of the United States, whose 
courts alone shall have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties 
for the same: Provided, however, That the said officers of any party to said 
convention other than the United States shall arrest and detain vessels and 
persons, as in this section specified, only after, such party, by appropriate 
legislation or otherwise, shall have authorized the naval or other officers of 
the United States duly commissioned and instructed by the President to that 
end to arrest, detain, and deliver to the proper officers of such party vessels 
and subjects under the jurisdiction of that Government offending against said 
convention or any statutes or regulations made by that Government to enforce 
said convention. The President of the United States shall determine by 
proclamation when such authority has been given by the other parties to said 
convention, and his determination shall be conclusive upon the question ; and 
such proclamation may be modified, amended, or revoked by proclamation of 
the President whenever, in his judgment, it is deemed expedient. 

Sec. 11. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, on his authorized 
agents, shall have authority to receive on behalf of the United States any fur- 
seal skins taken as provided in the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of said 
convention and tendered for delivery by the Governments of Japan and Great 
Britain in accordance with the terms of said articles; and all skins which are 
or shall become the property of the United States from any source whatsoever 
shall be sold by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in such market, at such 
times, and in such manner as he may deem most advantageous; and the pro- 
ceeds of such sale or sales shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States. 
And the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall likewise have authority to 
determine the number of fur seals to be taken annually on the Pribilof Islands, 
or any other islands or shores of the waters mentioned in the first article of 
said convention and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to which 
any seal herds hereafter resort ; to direct the taking of the same ; to deliver 
to the authorized agents of the Canadian Government and the Japanese Gov- 
ernment the skins to which they are entitled under the provisions of the tenth 
article of said convention; to pay to Great Britain and Japan such sums as 
they are entitled to receive, respectively, under the provisions of the eleventh 
article of said convention ; to retain such skins as the United States may be 
entitled to retain under the provisions of the eleventh article of said conven- 
tion ; and to do or perform, or cause to be done or performed, any and every 
act which the United States is authorized or obliged to do or perform by the 
provisions of the tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles of said 
convention ; and to enable the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to carry out 
the provisions of the said eleventh article there is hereby appropria ted, out of 
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four hun- 
dred thousand dollars. 

Sec. 12. That the term "pelagic sealing" where used in this act shall be 
taken to mean the killing, capturing, or pursuing in any manner whatsoever of 
fur seals while the same are in the water. The word " person " where used in 
this act shall extend and be applied to partnerships and corporations. 

Sec. 13. That this act shall take effect immediately, and shall continue in 
force until the termination of the said convention. 

The Chairman. I understand the State Department is represented 
before the committee this morning by Mr. Anderson, and the com- 
mittee will be very glad to hear Mr. Anderson in regard to this bill. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON, COUNSELOR FOR 
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 

Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the 
treaty to which the chairman has referred requires congressional 
legislation to give it effect, so far as the United States is concerned, 
and also in order to meet some of the obligations undertaken by this 



6 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Government under it; and this bill is prepared for, the purpose of 
accomplishing those results. Its preparation was the result of con- 
ferences between the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, and 
Commerce and Labor. It is the result of the joint efforts of those 
departments, and a great deal of care and attention was given, not 
only to its relation to the treaty, but to its relation to existing legis- 
lation. I think nearly all the provisions of it are reflected in one way 
or another by previous legislation. If the committee would care to 
have me go through the different sections of the bill for the purpose 
of showing its relation to existing law, I have a memorandum here 
which would enable me to do so. I think the provisions are quite 
simple, and a comparison between the provisions of the treaty and 
the provisions of the bill will show the reasons for them, and I can 
leave with the committee a copy of this memorandum to which I 
refer. 

(The memorandum here referred to will be found at the end of 
Mr. Anderson's statement.) 

The Chairman. You can present the matter, Mr. Anderson, just 
as you desire. 

Mr. Anderson. I desire only to meet the wishes of the committee. 
If the bill is not entirely clear, and if there are any questions which 
the committee wish to ask me, I would be glad to answer them. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Mr. Anderson, is the phraseology of this bill iden- 
tical with the terms of the convention ? 

Mr. Anderson. I could hardly say identical, but it is based alto- 
gether on the terms of the convention, and it is intended to carry into 
effect the terms of the treaty, and it does not deal, except in one par- 
ticular, with the relation of our own officials to the seal herd — that is, 
on shore. The purpose of the treaty is to prohibit permanently 
pelagic sealing — that is, sealing at sea by all persons and vessels sub- 
ject, to the jurisdiction of the four countries who are parties to the 
convention — and as that method of sealing is carried on outside of the 
jurisdiction of any one of the countries it required joint action of 
them all to subject their citizens or subjects to the laws of any of the 
other countries. It is for that purpose that this treaty was made, and 
this bill is drawn to carry out those terms of the treaty which require 
legislation to make them effective. Of course, we do not need a treaty 
to enable us to regulate the killing of seals within our own juris- 
diction. 

Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Anderson, if this legislation is enacted will the 
other parliaments of -the other powers have to take similar action in 
order to make it effective? 

Mr. Anderson. I understand that Great Britain has already under 
consideration in the British Parliament legislation to give effect to 
the treaty, so far as Great Britain is concerned. I understand that 
Japan will be able, by means of an executive order or some less 
formal measure than an act of Parliament, to put the treaty into 
effect, and Russia in the same way. 

Mr. Goodwin. The contracting parties are Great Britain, the 
United States, Russia, and Japan, are they not? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Foster. Has the treaty been promulgated yet? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; the ratifications were exchanged on the 12th of 
December, and the treaty by its own terms went into effect on the 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 7 

15th. It was proclaimed on the 14th of December. Under the treaty 
the United States is obligated to pay a lump sum of money to Great 
Britain and to Japan in consideration of their prohibiting their sub- 
jects from engaging in pelagic sealing; and that is one of the reasons 
why it is important to have this legislation, because the terms of the 
treaty require that this sum shall be paid when the treaty goes into 
operation. 

The Chairman. Mr. Anderson, have you a copy of the treaty? 

Mr. Anderson. Not in the form in which it has been printed as a 
document. 

The Chairman. Will you put the treaty as it exists to-day in the 
record ? 

Mr. Anderson. This is a copy in the form in which it was pro- 
claimed by the President : 

[Treaty series, No. 564.] 

Convention Between the United States and Other Powers Providing for 
the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals. 

[Signed at Washington, July 7, 1911. Ratification advised by the Senate, July 24, 1911. 
Ratified by the President, November 24, 1911. Ratified by Great Britain, August 25, 
1911. Ratified by Japan, November 6, 1911. Ratified by Russia, October 22, 1911 
(November 4, 1911). Ratifications exchanged at Washington, December 12, 1911. Pro- 
claimed, December 14, 1911.] 

By the President* of the United States of America — A proclamation. 

Whereas a Convention between the United States of America, Great Britain, 
Japan and Russia providing for the preservation and protection of the fur 
seals which frequent the waters of the North Pacific Ocean, was concluded and 
signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at "Washington, on the 7th day of 
July, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, the original of which Convention, 
being in the English language, is word for word as follows : 

The United States of America, His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom 
of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, 
Emperor of India, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and His Majesty the 
Emperor of all the Russias, being desirous of adopting effective means for 
the preservation and protection of the fur seals which frequent the waters of 
the North Pacific Ocean, have resolved to conclude a Convention for the purpose, 
and to that end have named as their Plenipotentiaries : 

The President of the United States of America, the Honorable Charles Nagel, 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor of the United States, and the Honorable 
Chandler P. Anderson, Counselor of the Department of State of the United 
States ; 

His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honorable James Bryce, of the Order of 
Merit, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Washington, and 
Joseph Pope, Esquire, Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and Companion 
of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, Under Secretary of State of Canada 
for External Affairs; 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, Baron Yasuya Uchida, Jusammi, Grand 
Cordon of the Imperial Order of the Rising Sun, his Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary at Washington ; and the Honorable Hitoshi Dauke, Shoshii, 
Third Class of the Imperial Order of the Rising Sun, Director of the Bureau 
of Fisheries, Department of Agriculture and Commerce ; 

His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the Honorable Pierre Botkine, 
Chamberlain of His Majesty's Court, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary to Morocco, and Baron Boris Nolde, of the Foreign Office ; 

Who, after having communicated to one another their respective full powers, 
which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following 
articles : 

Article I. 

The High Contracting Parties mutually and reciprocally agree that their 
citizens and subjects respectively, and all persons subject to their laws and 
treaties, and their vessels, shall be prohibited, while this Convention remains 



8 PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

in force, from engaging in pelagic sealing in the waters of the North Pacific 
Ocean, north of the thirtieth parallel of north latitude and including the Seas 
of Bering, Kamchatka, Okhotsk and Japan, and that every such person and 
vessel offending against such prohibition may be seized, except within the terri- 
torial jurisdiction of one of the other Powers, and detained by the naval or 
other duly commissioned officers of any of the Parties to this Convention, to be 
delivered as soon as practicable to an authorized official of their own nation at 
the nearest point to the place of seizure, or elsewhere as may be mutually agreed 
upon ; and that the authorities of the nation to which such person or vessel 
belongs alone shall have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties 
for the same; and that the witnesses and proofs necessary to establish the 
offense, so far as they are under the control of any of the Parties to this Con- 
vention, shall also be furnished with all reasonable promptitude to the proper 
authorities having jurisdiction to try the offense. 

Article II. 

Each of the High Contracting Parties further agrees that no person or 
vessel shall be permitted to use any of its ports or harbors or any part of its 
territory for any purposes whatsoever connected with the operations of pelagic 
pealing in the waters within the protected area mentioned in Article I. 

Article III. 

Each of the High Contracting Parties further agrees that no sealskins taken 
in the waters of the North Pacific Ocean within the protected area mentioned 
in Article I, and no sealskins identified as the species .known as Callorhinus 
alascanus, Callorhinus ursinus, and Callorhinus hurilensis, and belonging to 
the American, Russian or Japanese herds, except such as are taken under the 
authority of the respective Powers to which the breeding grounds of such herds 
belong and have been officially marked and certified as having been so taken, 
shall be permitted to be imported or brought into the territory of any of the 
Parties to this Convention. 

Article IV. 

It is further agreed that the provisions of this Convention shall not apply 
to Indians, Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines dwelling on the coast of the 
waters mentioned in Article I, who carry on pelagic sealing in canoes not 
transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and propelled entirely 
by oars, paddles, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons each, in 
the way hitherto practiced and without the use of firearms ; provided that such 
aborigines are not in the employment of other persons or under contract to 
deliver the skins to any person. 

Article V. 

Each of the High Contracting Parties agrees that it will not permit its 
citizens or subjects or their vessels to kill, capture or pursue beyond the dis- 
tance of three miles' from the shore line of its territories sea otters in any 
part of the waters mentioned in Article I of this Convention. 

Article VI. 

Each of the High Contracting Parties agrees to enact and enforce such legis- 
lation as may be necessary to make effective the foregoing provisions with 
appropriate penalties for violations thereof. 

Article VII. 

It is agreed on the part of the United States, Japan, and Russia that each 
respectively will maintain a guard or patrol in the waters frequented by the 
seal herd in the protection of which it is especially interested, so far as may 
be necessary for the enforcement of the foregoing provisions. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 9 

Article VIII. 

All of the High Contracting Parties agree to cooperate with each other in 
taking such measures as may be appropriate and available for the purpose of 
preventing pelagic sealing in the prohibited area mentioned in Article I. 

Article IX. 

The term pelagic sealing is hereby defined for the purposes of this Convention 
as meaning the killing, capturing or pursuing in any manner whatsoever of fur 
seals at sea. 

Article X. 

The United States agrees that of the total number of sealskins taken annu- 
ally under the authority of the United States upon the Pribilof Islands or any 
other islands or shores of the waters mentioned in Article I subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to which any seal herds hereafter resort, there 
shall be delivered at the Pribilof Islands at the end of each season fifteen per 
cent (15%) gross in number and value thereof to an authorized agent of the 
Canadian Government and fifteen per cent (15%) gross in number and value 
thereof to an authorized agent of the Japanese Government; provided, how- 
ever, that nothing herein contained shall restrict the right of the United States 
at any time and from time to time to suspend altogether the taking of sealskins 
on such islands or shores subject to its jurisdiction, and to impose such restric- 
tions and regulations upon the total number of skins to be taken in any season 
and the manner and times and places of taking them as may seem necessary 
to protect and preserve the seal herd or to increase its number. 

Article XI. 

The United States further agrees to pay the sum of two hundred thousand 
dollars ($200,000) to Great Britain and the sum of two hundred thousand dol- 
lars ($200,000) to Japan when this Convention goes into effect, as an advance 
payment in each case in lieu of such number of fur-seal skins to which Great 
Britain and Japan respectively would be entitled under the provisions of this 
Convention as would be equivalent in each case to two hundred thousand dol- 
lars ($200,000) reckoned at their market value at London at the date of their 
delivery before dressing and curing and less cost of transportation from the 
Pribilof Islands, such market value in case of dispute to be determined by an 
umpire to be agreed upon by the LTnited States and Great Britain, or by the 
United States and Japan, as the case may be, which skins shall be retained 
by the United States in satisfaction of such payments. 

The United States further agrees that the British and Japanese share respec- 
tively of the sealskins taken from the American herd under the terms of this 
Convention shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) each in any year even 
if such number is more than fifteen per cent (15%) of the number to which the 
authorized killing is restricted in such year, unless the killing of seals in such 
year or years shall have been absolutely prohibited by the United States for all 
purposes except to supply food, clothing, and boat skins for the natives on the 
islands, in which case the United States agrees to pay to Great Britain and 
to Japan each the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) annually in lieu of 
any share of skins during the years when no killing is allowed ; and Great 
Britain agrees, and Japan agrees, that after deducting the skins of their re- 
spective shares, which are to be retained by the United States as above pro- 
vided to reimburse itself for the advance payment aforesaid, the United States 
shall be entitled to reimburse itself for any annual payments made as herein 
required, by retaining an additional number of sealskins from the British and 
Japanese shares respectively over and above the specified minimum allowance 
Of one thousand (1,000) skins in any subsequent year or years when killing 
is again resumed, until the whole number of skins retained shall equal, reck- 
oned at their market value determined as above provided for, the entire amount 
so paid, with interest at the rate of four per cent (4%) per annum. 

If, however, the total number of seals frequenting the United States islands 
in any year falls below one hundred thousand (100,000), enumerated by official 
count, then all killing, excepting the inconsiderable supply necessary for the 



10 PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

support of the natives as above noted, may be suspended without allowance 
of skins or payment of money equivalent until the number "of such seals again 
exceeds one hundred thousand (100,000), enumerated in like manner. 

Article XII. 

It is agreed on the part of Russia that of the total number of sealskins taken 
annually upon the Commander Islands, or any other island or shores of the 
waters defined in Article I subject to the jurisdiction of Russia to which any 
seal herds hereafter resort, there shall be delivered at the Commander Islands 
at the end of each season fifteen per cent (15%) gross in number and value 
thereof to an authorized agent of the Canadian Government, and fifteen per 
cent (15%) gross in number and value thereof to an authorized agent of the 
Japanese Government; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall 
restrict the right of Russia at any time and from time to time during the first 
five years of the term of this Convention to suspend altogether the taking of 
sealskins on such islands or shores subject to its jurisdiction, and to impose 
during the term of this Convention such restrictions and regulation upon the 
total number of skins to be taken in any season, and the manner and times 
and places of taking them as may seem necessary to preserve and protect the 
Russian seal herd, or to increase its number ; but it is agreed, nevertheless, on 
the part of Russia that during the last ten years of the term of this Conven- 
tion not less than five per cent (5%) of the total number of seals on the Rus- 
sian rookeries and hauling grounds will be killed annually, provided that said 
five per cent (5%) does not exceed eighty-five per cent (85%) of the three- 
year-old male seals hauling in such year. 

If, however, the total number of seals frequenting the Russian islands in 
any year falls below eighteen thousand (18,000) enumerated by official count, 
then the allowance of skins mentioned above and all killing of seals except 
such as may be necessary for the support of the natives on the islands may be 
suspended until the number of such seals again exceeds eighteen thousand 
(18,000) enumerated in like manner. 

Article XIII. 

It is agreed on the part of Japan that of the total number of sealskins taken 
annually upon Robben Island, or any other islands or shores of the waters 
defined in Article I subject to the jurisdiction of Japan to which any seal 
herds hereafter resort, there shall be delivered at Robben Island at the end 
of each season 10 per cent (10%) gross in number and value thereof to an 
authorized agent of the United States Government, ten per cent (10%) gross 
in number and value thereof to an authorized agent of the Canadian Govern- 
ment, and ten per cent (10%) gross in number and value thereof to an au- 
thorized agent of the Russian Government; provided, however, that nothing 
herein contained shall restrict the right of Japan at any time and from time 
to time during the first five years of the term of this Convention to suspend 
altogether the taking of sealskins on such islands or shores subject to its juris- 
diction, and to impose during the term of this Convention such restrictions 
and regulations upon the total number of skins to be taken in any season, and 
the manner and times and places of taking them as may seem necessary to 
preserve and protect the Japanese herd, or to increase its number; but it is 
agreed, nevertheless, on the part of Japan that during the last ten years of 
the term of this Convention not less than five per cent (5%) of the total num- 
ber of seals on the Japanese rookeries and hauling grounds will be killed 
annually, provided that said five per cent (5%) does not exceed eighty-five 
per cent (85%) of the three-y ear-old male seals hauling in such year. 

If, however, the total number of seals frequenting the Japanese islands in 
any year falls below six thousand five, hundred (6,500) enumerated by official 
count, then the allowance of skins mentioned above and all killing of seals 
except such as may be necessary for the support of the natives on the islands 
may be suspended until the number of such seals again exceeds six thousand 
five hundred (6,500) enumerated in like manner. 

Article XIV. 

It is agreed on the part of Great Britain that in case any seal herd here- 
after resorts to any islands or shores of the waters defined in Article I subject 
to the jurisdiction of Great Britain, there shall be delivered at the end of each 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 11 

season during the term of tiiis Convention ten per cent (10%) gross in num- 
ber and value of the total number of sealskins annually taken from such herd 
to an authorized agent of the United States Government, ten per cent (10%) 
gross in number and value of the total number of sealskins annually taken 
from such herd to an authorized agent of the Japanese Government, and ten 
per cent (10%) gross in number and value of the total number of sealskins 
annually taken from such herd to an authorized agent of the Russian Gov- 
ernment. 

Article XV. 

It is further agreed between the United States and Great Britain that the 
provisions of this Convention shall supersede, in so far as they are inconsistent 
therewith or in duplication thereof, the provisions of the treaty relating to the 
fur seals, entered into between the United States and Great Britain on the 7th 
day of February, 1911. 

Article XVI. 

This Convention shall go into effect upon the 15th day of December, 1911, 
and shall continue in force for a period of fifteen (15) years from that date, 
and thereafter until terminated by twelve (12) months' written notice given 
by one or more of the Parties to all of the others, which notice may be given 
at the expiration of fourteen years or at any time afterwards, and it is agreed 
that at any time prior to the termination of this Convention, upon the request 
of any one of the High Contracting Parties, a conference shall be held forth- 
with between representatives of all the Parties hereto, to consider and if 
possible agree upon a further extension of this Convention with such addi- 
tions and modifications, if any, as may be found desirable. 

Article XVII. 

This Convention shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, by His Britannic 
Majesty, by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, and by His Majesty the 
Emperor of all the Russias ; and ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington 
as soon as practicable. 

In faith whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Conven- 
tion in quadruplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done at Washington the 7th day of July, in the year one thousand nine 
hundred and eleven. 



Charles Nagel 


[seal] 


Chandler P. Anderson 


[seal] 


James Bryce 


[seal] 


Jossr-H Pope 


fsEALl 


Y. UCHIDA 


[seal] 


H. Datjke 


[seal] 


P. Botkine 


[seal] 


NOLDE 


[seal] 



And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on the part of each of 
the High Contracting Parties, and the ratifications of the four Governments 
were exchanged in the City of Washington, on the twelfth day of December, 
one thousand nine hundred and eleven ; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, President of the 
United States of America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, 
to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed 
and fulfilled in good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set may hand and caused the seal of 
the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this fourteenth day of December in the year 
of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven, and of the 
[seal] Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and 
thirty-sixth. 

Wm H Taft 
By the President: 
P C Knox 

Secretary of State. 



12 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

The Chairman. I think it would be well, Mr. Anderson, for you to 
take the bill up section by section and explain it, in order to make it 
very clear, not only to the members of the committee, but also to the 
Members of the House. 

Mr. Anderson. The first section of the bill is intended to give 
effect to the provisions of article 1 of the treaty, which prohibits the 
citizens or subjects of the parties to the treaty from engaging in 
pelagic sealing in the protected area. So far as the United States 
is concerned, the citizens of the United States have since 1897 been 
prohibited from engaging in the business of pelagic sealing any- 
where in the waters of the Pacific Ocean, and this section follows 
closely the provisions of that act of December 29, 1897, with some 
slight changes which were necessary to make it conform to the pro- 
visions of the treaty. 

Mr. Kendall. Mr. Anderson, just what is comprehended by pel- 
agic sealing? 

Mr. Anderson. It is defined in the bill. 

Mr. Kendall. I notice it is, but I did not quite understand it. I 
apprehend it means the killing of females at sea. 

Mr. Anderson. It is not limited to the killing of females, but it 
generally accomplishes that, because they are the ones who range in 
and out from the islands, and when the sealers are watching for 
them around the islands they are more apt to kill the females than 
the males, because the males stay on shore, as I understand, during 
the greater part of the season. Of course, when the males are travel- 
ing, they probably kill an equal number. 

Mr. Kendall. Was there already a regulation against killing on 
shore ? 

Mr. Anderson. There are restrictions against killing on shore, 
regulations promulgated each year and limitations fixed, under which 
the authorized agents of the Government now operate. The clause 
of the act of 1897, to which I refer, reads : 

No citizen of the United States nor person owing duty of obedience to the 
laws or the treaties of the United States, nor any person belonging to or on 
board of a vessel of the United States, shall kill, capture, or hunt at any time 
or in any manner whatever, any fur seal in the waters of the Pacific Ocean, 
including Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, whether in the territorial waters 
of the United States or in the open sea. 

In addition to that this act now under consideration prohibits the 
killing, capturing, or pursuing of sea otter in any of the waters 
mentioned which run down to the thirtieth parallel of north lati- 
tude in the Pacific; that is, the killing of sea otter beyond the dis- 
tance of 3 miles from the shore line. That is all the treaty provided 
for — the killing of sea otter in the open sea. Of course, we can do 
what we please about regulating the killing of sea otter within our 
own territorial waters. 

Mr. Harrison. Have we a provision now prohibiting the killing of 
sea otter within the 3-mile limit? 
. Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

The Chairman. Yes ; there is a law prohibiting it absolutely. 

Mr. Kendall. What is the jurisdiction of our Government with 
reference to the border there ? 

Mr. Anderson. Our exclusive jurisdiction over the seals does not 
extend beyond the usual 3-mile limit. We failed to establish our 



PROTECTION OP PUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 18 

claim before the Paris Tribunal to exclusive jurisdiction over Bering- 
Sea as a closed sea; and by the award of that arbitration in 1893 we 
were restricted to the usual jurisdiction which prevails over ter- 
ritorial waters along the coast. 

Mr. Kendall. Three miles? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Kendall. We have done whatever we could by legislation to 
restrict the taking of seals, as I understand it? 

Mr. Anderson. We have, among our own people. 

Mr. Sharp. How effective have these laws been in reducing the 
killing of seals during the past two years ? 

Mr. Anderson. At sea? 

Mr. Sharp. In other words, has there been quite a diminution in 
the killing of seals during the past 10 years, or has it gone right 
along ? 

Mr. Anderson. There has been quite a diminution, but not on ac- 
count of any control we could exercise over the sealers. I think the 
diminution has been due to the decreased number of seals. We, of 
course, have been unable to restrain the Japanese sealers outside of 
the 3 -mile limit. 

Mr. Sharp. Would it be feasible, in your judgment, to have such 
an international agreement as would practically prohibit the killing 
of seals for a term of years, so as not to allow them to become 
extinct ? 

Mr. Anderson. Well, that has been done by this treaty, so far as 
the killing at sea is concerned. In treating with foreign countries 
with reference to sealing at sea we have not undertaken to limit our- 
selves in dealing with the seals on shore, because they are within 
our own jurisdiction, and the right is expressly reserved in this 
treaty to do what our Government pleases about regulating the 
killing on shore. That was not a matter which concerned the other 
Governments. 

Mr. Sharp. From your investigation of this subject, do you think 
it would be a wise and proper thing to bring about to prevent the 
killing of seals, whether on land or sea, for a term of years, so as to 
prevent their extinction? 

Mr. Anderson. We reserve the right to do that in the treaty, but 
if we do that then we shall,, by way of compensation to Great Britain 
and Japan, be obliged to pay them each $10,000 annually in lieu of 
the skins to which they would be entitled as their share of the kill- 
ing, which payments are to be refunded, with interest, when the 
killing is resumed, out of any surplus number; provided, however, 
that if the total number of seals frequenting the United States 
islands in any year falls below 100,000 then the killing may be dis- 
continued without making compensation or payment of any kind 
to either of those countries. There is no agreement in the treaty 
that we would discontinue killing, but it is contemplated that we 
may; I can not say what the views of Great Britain and Japan 
may be on the subject, but I think they would be a little disappointed 
if an attempt were not made — for a time, at least— to test the value 
of these regulations, without interfering with the present conditions 
on land, assuming that the herd is now over 100,000 in number. 

The Chairman. We can, of course, take up the question of pro- 
tecting the herd on land at any time ? 



14 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

The Chairman. The object of this act is, however, simply to carry 
the convention into effect ? 

Mr. Anderson. That is all. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Would it not be well to have Mr. Anderson ex- 
plain the bill section by section ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Anderson. The bill requires very little explanation. I have 
already spoken of section 1. Section 2 is a very important feature 
of the arrangement. That also is intended to carry into effect the 
provisions of Article I of the treaty, and its purpose is to prevent 
the use of the ports of the United States or the territory of the 
United States by vessels or by individuals engaged in pelagic seal- 
ing. Of course, this treaty between the four powers controls only 
the action of those who are under the jurisdiction of those four 
powers, and this provision was inserted in order to discourage those 
who are not under the jurisdiction of those powers — that is, people 
using the flags of other countries — from engaging in this business. 

When pelagic sealing becomes more profitable than it is at present, 
by reason of the increase of the herd, which will result from the 
abandonment of the business of pelagic sealing, it is important that 
these four powers should refuse the use of their ports or their terri- 
tory for the purposes of pelagic sealing, and that they should not in 
any way give encouragement or assistance to those engaged in this 
business. This section applies not only to citizens of the United 
States and not only to those who are under the jurisdiction of the 
other parties to the treaty, but to all the world. It is expected that 
under that section we will be able to prevent any vessel from main- 
taining itself in the North Pacific long enough to engage in the busi- 
ness of pelagic sealing, because the ports of Great Britain — that is, 
Canada — Kussia, Japan, and the United States will be closed to 
vessels of that kind. 

The Chairman. In other words, Mr, Anderson, section 2 prac- 
tically makes a pelagic sealer in the North Pacific a pirate, 

Mr. Anderson. It outlaws him so far as the use of the shore sur- 
rounding that portion of the ocean is concerned. Section 3 merely 
makes an exception which has been carried through all legislation 
on this subject, and is in the interest of humanity to enable the 
aborigines to maintain themselves in the way in which they are 
accustomed ; that is, by hunting seals. A similar exception is found 
in section 6, of the act of April 6, 1894. 

The Chairman. And it is in the game laws of Alaska ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. Now, section 4 also has relation to the 
prevention of those who are not under the jurisdiction of either of 
the four powers from engaging in the business of pelagic sealing. 
It was deemed desirable to agree that no skins which were taken 
from any of these herds — that is, the herds of the United States, 
Russia, and Japan — should be permitted to be brought into any of the 
four countries unless they were taken under the authority of the 
authorized officials of the Government. 

Mr. Kendall. This is simply to make the clause contained in the 
treaty more effective? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. The reason we hope it will be effective is 
that nearly all of the work of preparing the skins for market is 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 15 

carried on in London; they are dressed, dyed, and prepared there; 
in the old days it used to be quite a valuable business. It seems prob- 
able, therefore, that if the skins taken by pelagic sealers are excluded 
from the London market — and that is the market from which the 
skins are distributed all over the world — and if the skins so taken can 
not be brought into the other countries that are parties to this treaty 
it will become more difficult for anyone engaged in pelagic sealing 
to market his skins and make a profit out of his voyage. 

Mr. Sharp. How general has been the violation of existing treaties 
or laws upon this subject? Has the violation been widespread or 
have the treaties and laws been pretty well observed % 

Mr. Anderson. Well, we have only one treaty — that is, the Paris 
award regulation's. Those regulations have resulted from a treaty, 
and I think they have been observed in good faith. They applied 
only to the Canadians and ourselves. I think there have been very 
few seizures because of the violation of those regulations. Of course, 
we have maintained a patrol up there and that has had a helpful 
influence. 

Mr. Kendall. Article III of the treaty is just about the same as 
section 4 in the bill, and I assume the other nations had to enact 
legislation similar to this ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. By Article VI of the treaty each of the 
high contracting parties agrees " to enact and enforce such legislation 
as may be necessary to make effective the foregoing provisions," and 
so forth. - 

Mr. Kendall. Article III provides — 

That no sealskins taken in the waters of the North Pacific Ocean [and so on"|, 
except such as are taken under the authority of the respective powers to 
which the breeding grounds of such herds belong and have been officially 
marked and certified as having been so taken, shall be imported or brought into 
the territory of any of the parties to this convention — 

and I take it that section 4 of the bill is intended to carry that out. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. I should have mentioned Article III of the 
treaty in connection with section 4 of the act. Section 5 is very im- 
portant for the purpose of leaving a certain amount of leeway in 
making our arrangements with the other powers for carrying out the 
treaty. It provides — 

That the President shall have power to make regulations to carry this act 
and the said convention into effect, and from time to time to add to, modify, 
amend, or revoke such regulations, as in his judgment may seem expedient. 

Mr. Garner. That is really giving the President the power to make 
laws and to repeal them, is it not ? 

Mr. Anderson. To give effect to laws, the treaty itself being the 
law. 

Mr. Garner. He could make such regulations ; and under that law 
what is the penalty for a violation of them ? 

Mr. Elliott. They are provided for by statute. 

Mr. Garner. Here is a statute that says that regulations made by 
the President shall be law, and Congress simply 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing) . It is to give effect to the law. 

Mr. Garner. He could make no regulation contrary to the statute ? 

Mr. Elliott. Certainly not. 

Mr. Kendall. Did the law of 1897 have this same provision, Mr. 
Anderson ? 



16 PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; in section 10. 

Mr. Kendall. Well, the act of December 29, 1897, related, as I un- 
derstand it, to the importation into the United States of fur-seal 
skins taken in the waters mentioned in that act. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Kendall. Did it contain this provision ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes; and the act of April 6, 1894, section 7, also 
contained a somewhat similar provision, as follows : 

That the President shall have power to make regulations respecting the 
special license and the distinctive flag mentioned in this act and regulations 
otherwise suitable to secure the due execution of the provisions of this act, 
and from time to time to add to, modify, amend, or revoke such regulations 
as in his judgment he may deem expedient. 

That is where the language of this section came from. 

Mr. Garner. I am not speaking about the statute passed in 1897. 
I am simply calling attention to the advisability of passing a statute 
that puts in the hands of the President the right to make and unmake 
laws. 

Mr. Kendall. I think that suggestion is a little too broad. 

Mr. Anderson. The basis of the regulations— — 

Mr. Garner (interposing). That is what I want to know, what the 
basis is. 

Mr. Anderson (continuing). Is existing laws; that is, the treaty, 
which is itself a law, and this act when it goes into effect. 

Mr. Goodwin. The treaty itself can not go into infinite detail as to 
the enforcement of every regulation, but gives to the President 
plenary power to enforce the law, but not to make law. 

Mr. Anderson. Exactly. 

Mr. Goodwin. And for the violation of any orders that the Presi- 
dent may make the statute now in force would apply, as I under- 
stand it? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Gardner. Here is the point about it : Congress can make these 
rules and regulations if it will take the time and trouble to do so; 
that is, in this bill make rules and regulations such as it is contem- 
plated the President would make under section 5 of this act. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. If Congress would take the trouble and time to do 
so, and had the knowledge. 

Mr. Foster. Is it not a fact that Congress, after making a law, 
is repeatedly leaving it to this department and to that department 
to make the necessary rules and regulations for its administration ? 

Mr. Garner. Yes. It has been the custom to do that, but I have 
never acquiesced in it, and I have never thought it was good legisla- 
tion, just as I have never acquiesced or thought it was good legis- 
lation to make bulk appropriations and turn them over to the head 
of some bureau to fix salaries and regulate the expenditure of the 
money as he might deem best. If this committee would take the 
time, and had the same knowledge about it, it could formulate rules 
and regulations to govern this matter just as well as the President 
of the United States. We are simply shifting our duties to the 
shoulders of the President of the United States, 

Mr. Goodwin. Suppose some exigency should arise when Congress 
was not in session, or when it was in session, requiring the issuance 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 17 

of an Executive order to meet that exigency, do you not think the 
Executive should be clothed with that authority — the right to make 
certain rules and regulations for the violation of which the statutes 
now provide a penalty? 

The Chairman. As I understand it, section 5 simply provides that 
the President shall have power to make rules and regulations to 
carry this act, and also the convention, into effect. Now, all the 
departments have the right, under the general laws, to make rules 
and regulations to carry those laws into effect, and this simpry fol- 
lows the usual practice. 

Mr. Kendal,!,. If Congress passes a law with reference to this 
treaty in order to give effect to the convention, is it not implied in 
the very power of the President that he has the authority to make 
rules and regulations for the enforcement of that law ? 

Mr. Garner. But a violation of those regulations would not sub- 
ject one to punishment. 

The Chairman. Well, a violation of the regulations would be 
a violation of the act. 

Mr. Garner. I can not see how you can make regulations under 
the act and make men liable for prosecution for the violation of the 
regulations if they do not violate the act. We are simply shifting 
to the President's shoulders rules and regulations that we ought to 
make to govern or carry this treaty into effect. 

The Chairman. To explain that I want to say this, and I am 
somewhat familiar with the matter: Congress passed an act regard- 
ing the protection and preservation of wild animals in Alaska. Now, 
in that act it was provided that the governor of Alaska should make 
rules and regulations to carry the act into effect, and the governor 
has made those rules and regulations. 

Mr. Foster. And those rules and regulations are binding on the 
officers of the Government, but no penalty is attached to a citizen; 
they have no binding effect upon the citizens; it is simply to aid in 
the administration of the law ; that is all. 

Mr. Garner. That is all right, but if we did not pass section 5 he 
could still make whatever rules and regulations he wanted to make 
in order to govern his officers. 

Mr. Foster. I think that is right. 

Mr. Garner. And if that is so, what is the necessity of putting 
in here a palpable admission on our part that we are not capable of 
making these rules and regulations? 

Mr. Foster. I do not think we should admit that. We are not 
administering the law, and the people who have- the administration 
of the law must have rules and regulations. I think you are prob- 
ably right, that there is no great necessity for it, but I think it is 
wise to put it in. 

The Chalrman. If it were not in there, it would be very doubtful 
whether the administrative officers could make any rules and regu- 
lations. 

Mr. Kendall. Is not that inherent in the officers ? 

Mr. Garner. There are hundreds and hundreds of rules and regu- 
lations governing the various departments of this Government, and 
Congress did not authorize those rules and regulations ; but they only 
apply to the officers in that bureau or in that department. 

22875—12 2 



18 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA' OTTER. 

Mr. Kendall. The Department of Justice has a little book relat- 
ing to the administration of the revenue laws. 

The Chairman. Well, we will take that up later en. Please take 
up section 6. 

Mr. Anderson. The question has been asked whether rules and 
regulations were made applicable to others than officials in the act 
of 1897. It is evident from the provisions of that act that rules and 
regulations made under it were not limited to officers of the Govern- 
ment, because a penalty is imposed for the violation of the rules and 
regulations made under it, and for the same reason a penalty is im- 
posed by section 6 of this act for the violation of the rules and regu- 
lations to be made under it. 

Mr. Garner. Now you go still farther. You propose to confer 
upon the President the power to make rules and regulations, and 
then you propose that if anyone violates any one of those rules and 
regulations he shall be subject to a penalty. That is putting the right 
to make law in the hands of the President. 

Mr. Anderson. The rules and regulations would not be of much 
importance without penalties. 

Mr. Garner. I agree with you entirely. I contend that we are 
shifting to the President's shoulders the burden which the Constitu- 
tion places upon Congress. It is our duty to make criminal laws, 
and I do not want to place in the President's hands the right to make 
criminal laws. 

Mr. Goodwin. As I interpret this bill there are certain inhibitions 
contained in it. This administrative authority that is vouchsafed 
to the President only clothes him with authority to make rules and 
regulations that may be essential from time to time for the enforce- 
ment of the law generally and to meet any emergency that may arise, 
because Congress is not always in session. 

Mr. Garner. Now, just a moment in that connection: You first 
confer on the President the right to make rules and regulations, 
and from time to time to add to, modify, amend, or revoke such regu- 
lations, or do as he pleases ? 

Mr. Goodwin. No ; not in conflict with the tenor of the bill. 

Mr. Garner. Not in conflict, but anything not in conflict with it. 
Suppose he should provide that a man should wear a woolen sock 
on one foot and a cotton one on the other, and that if he violated 
one of those regulations he would be punished by a fine of $200. 
Now, that is, of course, nonsensical; but I am simply using it to 
illustrate the power we are placing in the hands of the President- 
Mr. Anderson. The rules and regulations must be for the purpose 
of carrying the treaty into effect. 

Mr. Foster. I agree with Mr. Garner as to section 6. I think sec- 
tion 5 is proper and right, but when it comes to section 6, which 
makes it an offense to violate one of those regulations, I agree with 
Mr. Garner. 

Mr. Sharp. As applying to every person, not merely the officials 
who are a part of the administration, but applying to any person. 

Mr. Foster. Yes ; that should be cut out. 

Mr. Garner. Well, let us pass that. 

Mr. Foster. I think in section 6, lines 2 and 3, the words " or of 
any regulations made thereunder," should be omitted. I agree with 
Mr. Garner that even if it has been done in the past we should not 



PROTECTION OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. I 19 

impose a penalty in advance upon any rule or regulation that the 
President may make. Section 5, in my judgment, is entirely proper ; 
we should give some department the authority to make the necessary 
regulations for the administration of this law and its enforcement, 
but these regulations should apply to officials, and if they failed the 
Government could take them in hand. But the things that are pro- 
hibited and the things that are permitted are included in the statute 
itself and the penalty should be for the violation of those things. 

Mr. Sharp. Would you not also strike out, in lines 7 and 8, the 
words " or of the regulations made thereunder ? " 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Mr. Goodwin. If you will pardon me, section 5 says, " That the 
President shall have power to make regulations to carry this act and 
the said convention into effect." Now, those are only administrative 
acts ; he is not sitting as an executive and making laws himself, but 
he is only enforcing this act and the convention; he is not clothed 
with any plenary power outside of the tenor of the act or of the con- 
vention; he is not to do anything but enforce this act as well as the 
convention. 

Mr. Foster. You refer to section 6, do you not ? 

Mr. Goodwtn. I was going back to the word " regulations," in sec- 
tion 6, as predicated upon section 5, which has reference to the act 
ac well as to the convention. Now, for the .carrying out of the law 
the President is clothed with certain power to enforce the convention. 

Mr. Garxer. He has power under this act to make certain rules 
and regulations and the violation of one of those rules or regulations 
subjects the person to a penalty under section 6. 

Mr. Foster. It should not do that. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Is not that true with reference to the postal regu- 
lations ? There are postal regulations made under the laws of Con- 
gress, but really promulgated and made hj the department, and if 
you violate them you are subject to punishment. 

Mr. Kendall. But that does not exist in any other department 
than the Post Office Department? 

Mr. Bartholdt. No. 

Mr. Anderson. May I say this to you, that these rules and regula- 
tions concern the Department of Commerce and Labor more particu- 
larly than the State Department, and Mr. Earl, the Solicitor for the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, is here and he is prepared to 
answer the question that has been raised as to the importance of the 
proposed regulations. 

The Chairman. We are going to hear Mr. Earl when you finish. 

Mr. Anderson. I have nothing more to say about the act. I think 
the other provisions speak for themselves. Section 7 follows very 
closely the provisions of section 4 of the act of 1897 and of the pro- 
visions of section 10 of the act of 1894, and is a provision which is 
usually found in legislation of this character. 

The Chairman. Mr. Anderson, I wish to ask you a question : This 
bill, as it is now, meets with the approval of the State Department, 
does it not? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; it does. 

The Chairman. And if it were enacted into law it would carry out 
the provisions of the convention ? 

Mr. Anderson. It would. 



20 ' PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 

The Chairman. And that is the purpose of this act? 

Mr. Anderson. It is. 

The Chairman. In your opinion it is advisable, in order that we 
may show our good faith, to enact this legislation as early as possible 
so it will be an example to the other contracting parties? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes; not only an example, but we have an obliga- 
tion ; we have assumed an obligation to pay $200,000 to Great Britain 
and to Japan when the treaty goes into effect, and that time has 
alreadjr arrived. 

Mr. Garner. Does it take this act to put that treaty into effect 
and to make the appropriation available? 

Mr. Anderson. Of course, the appropriation must come from Con- 
gress. The treaty obligates this Government to pay the money, 
but the money is not available until it is appropriated by Congress. 

Mr. Garner. So that if Congress did not appropriate $200,000, 
which is due to England and Japan, the treaty would not become 
effective ? 

Mr. Anderson. Well, we would have failed to fulfill our treaty 
obligation in that respect. I do not mean, of course, that the State 
Department thinks no changes should be made in the act, but they 
should not be made without careful consideration, for this act repre- 
sents the joint word of the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, 
and Commerce and Labor, all of which departments will be con- 
cerned in carrying out the provisions of this treaty. 

Mr. Garner. If this committee should undertake to make rules 
and regulations to put the convention into effect, it would not meet 
with the disapproval of the State Department? 

Mr. Anderson. The State Department would have no complaint 
to make. 

Mr. Linthicum. Have you any idea how many seals are killed 
yearly ? 

Mr. Anderson. On land or at sea? 

Mr. Linthicum. I would like to know about both. 

Mr. Anderson. I think at sea between nine and twelve thousand; 
I do not think it is more or less than that. 

Mr. Linthicum. What does that industry mean to our people? 

Mr. Anderson. The greater part are taken by the Japanese; our 
people do not engage in it at all ; the Canadians get about three or 
four thousand, and the Japanese the balance. 

(Memorandum hereinbefore referred to by Mr. Anderson follows.) 

[A BILL To give effect to the convention between the Governments of the United States, 
Great Britain. Japan, and Russia for the preservation and protection of the fur seals and 
sea otter which frequent the waters of the north Pacific Ocean, concluded at Washington 
July seventh, nineteen hundred and eleven.] 

Whereas the plenipotentiaries of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and 
Russia did, on the seventh day of July, anno Domini nineteen hundred and 
eleven, enter into a convention for the preservation ad protection of the fur 
seals and sea otter which frequent the waters of the north Pacific Ocean, which 
convention was subsequently ratified by the Governments of the United States, 
Great Britain, Japan, and Russia and the exchange of ratifications thereof was 
effected on the twelfth day of December, nineteen hundred and eleven : Now, 
therefore. 

Act of February 21, 1898 (27 Stats., 7/72).— That whenever the Government of 
the United States shall conclude an effective international arrangement for the 
protection of fur seals in the north Pacific Ocean by agreement with any power, 
or as a result of the decision of the tribunal of arbitration under the convention 
concluded between the United States and Great Britain. February 29, 1892, and 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 21 

so long as such arrangement shall continue, the provisions of section 1956 of 
the Revised Statutes and all other provisions of the statutes of the United 
States, so far as the same may be applicable, relative to the protection of fur 
seals and other fur-bearing animals within the limits of Alaska or in the waters 
thereof, shall be extended to and over all that portion of the Pacific Ocean in- 
cluded in such international arrangement. Whenever an effective international 
agreement is concluded as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the President to 
declare that fact by proclamation, and to designate the portion of the Pacific 
Ocean to which it is applicable, and that this act has become operative; and 
likewise when such arrangement ceases to declare, that fact, and that this act 
has become inoperative and his proclamation with respect thereto shall be con- 
clusive. During the extension as aforesaid of said laws for the protection of 
fur seals and other fur-bearing animals all violations thereof in said designated 
portion of the Pacific Ocean sball be held to be the same as if committed within 
the limits of Alaska or the waters thereof, but they may be prosecuted either in 
the district court of Alaska or in any district court of the United States in Cali- 
fornia, Oregon, or Washington. 

Note. — Revised Statutes, section 1956, referred to above, amended by act of 
April 21, 1910, and Revised Statutes, section 1962 to section 1972 repealed by 
same act. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That no citizen of the United States, nor per- 
son owing duty of obedience to the laws or the treaties of the United States, 
nor any of their vessels, nor any vessel of the United States, nor any person 
belonging to or on board of such vessel, shall kill, capture, or pursue, at any 
time or in any manner whatever, any fur seal in the waters of the north Pacific 
Ocean north of the thirtieth parallel of north latitude and including the seas 
of Bering, Kamchatka, Okhotsk, and Japan ; nor shall any such person or vessel 
kill, capture, or pursue sea otter in any of the waters mentioned beyond the 
distance of three miles from the shore line of the territory of the United States. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 8 (36 Stats., 326) amending act December 29, i8.97, 
section 1 (30 Stats., 226). — No citizen of the United States, nor person owing 
duty of obedience to the laws or the treaties of the United States, nor any 
person belonging to or on board of a vessel of the United States, shall kill, 
capture, or hunt, at any time or in any manner whatever, any fur seal in the 
waters of the Pacific Ocean, including Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, 
whether in the territorial ivaters of the United States or in the open sea. 

Compare act April 6, 1894, section 1 (2S Stats., 53) (amended by act Apr. 
24, 1894, 28 Stats., 64), sealing within 60 miles of the Pribilof Islands forbidden. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 2 (28 Stats., 53), sealing between May 1 and July 
SI prohibited. 

Act June 5, 1894 (28 Stats., 85), making act of April 6, 1894, applicable to 
any past or future treaty for protection of fur-bearing animals. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 4 (36 Stats., 326), amending Revised Statutes, 1956, 
and act of March 3, 1899, section 173 (30 Stats., 1279), sealing in Alaskan Ter- 
ritory or waters prohibited. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 7 (36 Stats., 326), amending Revised Statutes, 1961, 
and act March 3, 1899, section 17S (30 Stats., 1279) ; Revised Statutes, 1960; 
act March 3, 1899, section 177, sealing on beaches and waters surrounding 
Pribilof Islands prohibited. 

Note.— Act April 21, 1910, section 10 (36 Stats., 326) ; Revised Statutes, sec- 
tion 1962 to section 1972, " and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this 
act are hereby repealed. 7 ' 

Sec. 2. That no citizen of the United States, nor person above described in 
the first section, shall equip, use, or employ, or furnish aid in equipping, using, 
or employing, or furnish supplies to any vessel used or employed, or to be 
used or employed, in carrying on or taking part in pelagic sealing in said 
waters, nor shall any of their vessels nor any vessel of the United States be 
so used or employed ; and no. person or vessel shall use any of the ports or 
harbors of the United States, or any part of the territory of the United 
States, for any purposes whatsoever connected with the operations of pelagic 
sealing in the waters named in the first section of this act ; and no vessel 
which is engaged or employed, or intended to be engaged or employed, for or 
in connection with pelagic sealing in such waters shall use any of the ports or 
harbors or any part of the territory of the United States for any purpose 
whatsoever. 



22 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 2 (30 Stats., 226).— That no citizen of the 
United States, nor person above described in section 1, shall equip, use, or em- 
ploy, or furnish aid in' equipping, using, or employing, or furnish supplies to 
any vessel used or employed, or to be used or employed, in carrying on or taking 
part in said killing, capturing, or hunting of fur seals in said waters, nor shall 
any vessel of the United States be so used or employed. 

Sec. 3. That the provisions of the first and second sections of this act shall 
not apply to Indians, Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines dwelling on the coast 
of the waters mentioned in the first section of this act who carry on pelagic 
sealing 'in canoes or undecked boats propelled wholly by paddles, oars, or sails, 
and not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, and manned 
by not more than five persons each, in the way hitherto practiced by the said 
Indians, Aleuts, or other aborigines, and without the use of firearms : Provided, 
however, That the exception made in this section shall not apply to Indians,. 
Ainos, Aleuts, or other aborigines in the employment of other persons or who 
shall kill, capture, or pursue fur seals under contract to deliver the skins to any 
person. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 6 (28 Stats., 53).— That the foregoing sections of this 
act shall not apply to Indians, dwelling on the coast of the United States, and 
taking fur seals in canoes or undecked vessels propelled wholly by paddles, oars, 
or sails, and not transported by or used in connection with other vessels, or 
manned by more than five persons, in the manner heretofore practiced by the 
said Indians : Provided, however, That the exception made in this section shall 
not apply to Indians in the employment of other persons, or who shall kill, 
capture, or pursue fur seals outside of the territorial waters under a contract 
to deliver the skins to other persons, nor to the waters of Bering Sea or of the 
passes between the Aleutian Islands. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 6 (30 Stats., 226).— That this act shall not 
interfere with the privileges accorded to Indians dwelling on the coast of the 
United States under section 6 of the act of April 6, 1894, but the limitations pre- 
scribed in said act shall remain in full force. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 3 (36 Stats., 326).— That whenever seals are killed 
and sealskins taken on any of the Pribilof Islands the native inhabitants of 
said islands shall be employed in such killing and in curing the skins taken, and 
shall receive for their labor fair compensation, to be fixed from time to time by 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who shall have the authority to pre- 
scribe by regulation the manner in which such compensation shall be paid to 
the said natives or expended or otherwise used in their behalf and for their 
benefit. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 6 (36 Stats., 326), amending Revised Statutes 1960 
and act March 3, 1899, section 177 (30 Stats., 1279).— * * * but the natives 
of the islands (Pribilof) shall have the privilege of killing such young seals 
as may be necessary for their food and clothing, and also such old seals as may 
be required for their clothing and for the manufacture of boats for their own 
use; and the killing in such cases shall be limited and controlled by such regula- 
tions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Compare act April 6, 1S94, section 3 (28 Stats., 53), sealing restricted to cer- 
tain kinds of vessels. 

Sec. 4. That the importation or bringing into territory of the United States, 
by any person whatsoever, of skins of fur seals taken in the waters mentioned 
in the first section of this act, or of skins identified as those of the species 
known as Callorhinus alascanus, Callorhinus ursinus, and Callorhinus kuri- 
lensis, or belonging to the American, Russian, or Japanese herds, whether raw, 
dressed, dyed, or manufactured, except such as have been taken under the 
authority of the respective parties to said convention, to which the breeding 
grounds of such herds belong, and have been officially marked and certified as 
having been so taken, is hereby prohibited; and all such articles imported or 
brought in after this act shall take effect shall not be permitted to be exported, 
but shall be seized and forfeited to the United States. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 9 (30 Stats., 226).— That the importation 
into the United States by any person whatsoever of fur-seal skins taken in the 
waters mentioned in this act, whether raw, dressed, dyed, or manufactured, is 
hereby prohibited, and all such articles imported after this act shall take effect 
shall not be permitted to be exported, but shall be seized and destroyed by the 
proper officers of the United States. 

Sec. 5. That the President shall have power to make regulations to carry 
this act and the said convention into effect, and from time to time to add to, 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 23 

modify, amend, or revoke such regulations as in his judgment may seem 
expedient. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
under the direction of the President, to see that the said convention, the pro- 
visions of this act, and the regulations made thereunder are executed and 
enforced; and all officers of the United States engaged in the execution and 
enforcement of this act are authorized and directed to cooperate with the 
proper officers of any of the other parties to the said convention in taking such 
measures as may be appropriate and available under the said convention, this 
act, or the regulations made thereunder for the purpose of preventing pelagic 
sealing as in this act prohibited. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 7 (28 Stats., 53). — That the President shall have 
power to make regulations respecting the special license and the distinctive 
flag mentioned in this act and regulations otherwise suitable to secure the due 
execution of the provisions of this act, and from time to time to add to, modify, 
amend, or revoke such regulations as in his judgment may seem expedient. 

Act March 8, 1899, section 173 (30 Stats., 1279), as amended by act April 
21, 1910, section 4 (36 Stats., 326). — * * * but the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor shall have power to authorize the killing of auy such mink, martin, 
sable, fur seal, or other fur-bearing animals under such regulations as he may 
prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
to prevent the killing of any fur seal, except as authorized by law, and to 
provide for the execution of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise 
provided by law. 

Compare.— Act April 21, 1910, section 1 (36 Stats., 326), Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor empowered to make regulations for killing seals, etc. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 9 (36 Stats., 326), Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor authorized to appoint additional officers arid agents to carry out the laws 
relating to seal fisheries in Alaska, etc. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 10 (30 Stats.. 226).— That the President shall 
have power to make all necessary regulations to carry this act into effect. 

Sec. 6. That every person guilty of a violation of the provisions of said con- 
vention, or of this act, or of any regulations made thereunder, shall, for each 
offense, be fined not less than two hundred dollars or more than two thousand 
dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both ; and every vessel, its 
tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, at any time used or employed in viola- 
tion of this act, or of the regulations made thereunder, shall be forfeited to 
the United States. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 3 (30 Stats., 226). — That every person guilty 
of a violation of the provisions of this act, or of any regulations made there- 
under, shall, for each offense, be fined not less than $200 or more than $2,000, 
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both ; and every vessel, its tackle, 
apparel, furniture, and cargo, at any time used or employed in violation of 
this act, or of the regulations made thereunder, shall be forfeited to the United 
States. 

Act April 21, 1910, section 4 (86 Stats., 326), amending Revised Statutes 1956, 
and act March 3, 1899, section 173 (30 Stats., 1279).— No person shall kill any 
otter, mink, martin, sable, or fur seal or other fur-bearing animal within the 
limits of Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof; and evey person guilty 
thereof, for each offense, shall be fined not less than $200 or more than $1,000, or 
imprisoned not more than six months, or both ; and all vessels, tackle, apparel, 
furniture, and cargo found engaged in violation of this section shall be forfeited : 
* * * (similar penalty for killing female seals, etc., provided in section 7 
of this act amending Revised Statutes 1961 and act March 3, 1899, section 178 
(30 Stats., 1279) ; see also act March 3, 1899, section 183 (30 Stats., 1279)). 

Compare. — Revised Statutes 1958 and 5293 and act March 3, 1899, section 
175 (30 Stats., 1279), remission of fines imposed without cause. 

Sec. 7. That if any vessel shall be found within the waters to which this act 
applies, having on board fur-seal skins, or bodies of seals, or apparatus or im- 
plements for killing or taking seals, it shall be presumed that such vessel was 
used or employed in the killing of said seals, or that said apparatus or imple- 
ments were used in violation of this act, until the contrary is proved to the 
satisfaction of the court, in so far as such vessel, apparatus, and implements 
are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Act December 29, 1897, section 4 (30 Stats., 226).— That if any vessel of the 
United States shall be found within the waters to which this act applies, having 
on board fur-seal skins, or bodies of seals, or apparatus or implements suitable 
for killing or taking seals, it shall be presumed that such vessel was used or 



24 PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

employed in the killing of said seals, or that said apparatus or implements were 
used in violation of this act until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of 
the court. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 10 (28 Stats., 53). — That if any unlicensed vessel of 
the United States shall be found within the waters to which this act applies. 
and at a time when the killing of fur seals is by this act there prohibited, 
having on board sealskins, or bodies of seals, or apparatus or implements suit- 
able for killing or taking seals, or if any licensed vessel shall be found in 
the waters to which this act applies having on board apparatus or implements 
suitable for taking seals, but forbidden then and there to be used, it shall be 
presumed that the vessel in the one case and the apparatus or implements in 
the other was or were used in violation of this act until it is otherwise suffi- 
ciently proved. 

Sec. S. That any violation of the said convention, or of this act. or of the 
regulations thereunder, may be prosecuted either in the district court of Alaska 
or in any district court of the United States in California, Oregon, or Wash- 
ington. 

Act December 29. 1897, section 5 (30 Stats., 220).— That any violation of this 
act or of the regulations thereunder may be prosecuted either in the district 
court of Alaska or in any district court of the United States in California, 
Oregon, or Washington. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 9 (28 Stats., 53). — (Same as above.) See also Re- 
vised Statutes 1957. 

Sec. 9. That it shall be the duty of the President to cause a guard or patrol 
to be maintained in the waters frequented by the seal herd or herds and sea 
otter, in the protection of which the United States is especially interested, com- 
posed of naval or other public vessels of the United States designated by him 
for such service ; and any officer of any such vessel engaged in such service and 
any other officers duly designated by the President may search any vessel of 
the United States, in port, or in territorial waters of the United States, or on 
the high seas, when suspected of having violated, or being about to violate, the 
provisions of said convention, or of this act, or of any regulations made there- 
under, and may seize such vessel and the officers and crew thereof and bring 
them into the most accessible port of the Territory and States mentioned in 
the eighth section of this act for trial. 

Act December 29, 1S97, section 8 (30 Stats., 226), repealed by act June 9, 1896 
(29 Stats. 316). — That any officer of the Navy or Revenue-Cutter Service of the 
United States and any other officers duly designated by the President may 
search any vessel of the United States, in port or on the high seas, suspected 
of having violated or having an intention to violate the provisions of tbis act, 
and may seize such vessel and the offending officers or crew and bring them 
into the most accessible port of the United States or Territory mentioned in 
section 5 of this act for trial. 

Act of April 6, 1.894, section 11 (28 Stats., 53).— That it shall be the duty of 
the President to cause a sufficient naval foree to cruise in the waters in which 
this act is applicable to enforce its provisions, and it shall be the duty of the 
commanding officer of any vessel belonging to the naval or revenue service of 
the United States, when so instructed by the President, to seize and arrest all 
vessels of the United States found by him to be engaged, used, or employed in 
the waters last aforesaid in violation of any of the prohibitions of this act, or 
of any regulations made thereunder, and to take the same, with all persons on 
board thereof, to the most convenient port in any district in the United States 
mentioned in this act, there to be dealt with according to law. 

Act March. 2, 1889, section 3 (25 Stats., 1009). — * * * and he (the Presi- 
dent) shall also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently 
cruise said waters and arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be or to 
have been engaged in any violation of the laws of the United States therein. 
(Refers to killing fur-bearing animals. in the dominion of the United States in 
Bering Sea.) 

Sec. 10. That any vessel or person described in the first section of this act 
offending or being about to offend against the prohibitions of the said conven- 
tion or of this act, or of the regulations made thereunder, may be seized and 
detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of any of the parties 
to the said convention other than the United States, except within the Terri- 
torial jurisdiction of one or the other of said parties, on condition, however, 
that when such vessel or person is so seized and detained by officers of any 
party other than the United States such vessel or person shall be delivered as 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 25 

soon as practicable at the nearest point to the place of seizure, with the wit- 
nesses and proofs necessary to establish the offense so far as they are under the 
control of such party, to the proper official of the United States, whose courts 
alone shall have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties for 
the same : Provided, hoivcver, That the said officers of any party to said con- 
vention other than the United States shall arrest and detain vessels and per- 
sons, as in this section specified, only after such party, by appropriate legisla- 
tion or otherwise, shall have authorized the naval or other officers of the 
United States duly commissioned and instructed by the President to that end 
to arrest, detain, and deliver to the proper officers of such party vessels and 
subjects under the jurisdiction of that Government offending against said con- 
vention or any statutes or regulations made by that Government to enforce said 
convention. The President of the United States shall determine by proclama- 
tion when such authority has been given by the other parties to said convention, 
and his determination shall be conclusive upon the question ; and such proclama- 
tion may be modified, amended, or revoked by proclamation of the President 
whenever in his judgment it is deemed expedient. 

Act April 6, 1894, section 12 (28 Stats., 53). — That any vessel or citizen of the 
United States or person described in the first section of this act offending against 
the prohibitions of this act or the regulations thereunder may be seized and 
detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of Her Majesty the 
Queen of Great Britain, but when so seized and detained they shall be delivered 
as soon as practicable, with any witnesses and proofs on board, to any naval 
or revenue officer or other authority of the United States, whose courts alone 
shall have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties for the same : 
Provided, however, That British officers shall arrest and detain the vessels and 
persons as in this section specified only after, by appropriate legislation, Great 
Britain shall have authorized officers of the United States, duly commissioned 
and instructed by the President to that end, to arrest, detain, and to deliver to 
the authorities of Great Britain vessels and subjects of that Government 
offending against any statutes or regulations of Great Britain enacted or made 
to enforce the award of the treaty mentioned in the title of this act. 

Compare.— Act March 3, 1899, section 174 (30 Stats., 1279), collectors of 
customs in Alaska empowered to arrest persons and seize vessels violating 
the laws extended over the Territory. 

Revised Statutes 1957 to same effect. 

Sec. 11. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, or his authorized agents, 
shall have authority to receive on behalf of the United States any fur-seal skins 
taken as provided in the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of said convention 
and tendered for delivery by the Governments of Japan and Great Britain in 
accordance with the terms of said articles; and all skins which are or shall 
become the property of the United States from any source whatsoever shall be 
sold by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in such market, at such times, 
and in such manner as he may deem most advantageous ; and the proceeds of 
such sale or sales shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States. 1 And 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall likewise have authority to deter- 
mine the number of fur seals to be taken annually on the Pribilof Islands, or 
any other islands or shores of the waters mentioned in the first article of said 
convention and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to which any 
seal herds hereafter resort ; to direct the taking of the same ; 2 to deliver to the 
authorized agents of the Canadian Government and the Japanese Government 
the skins to which they are entitled under the provisions of the tenth article 
of said convention; to pay to Great Britain and Japan such sums as they are 
entitled to receive respectively, under the provisions of the eleventh article of 
said convention ; to retain such skins as the United States may be entitled 
to retain under the provisions of the eleventh article of said convention ; and 

1 Act April 21, 1910, section 2 (36 Stats., 326).— That any and all sealskins 
taken under the authority conferred by the preceding section shall be sold by 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor in such market, at such times, and in 
such manner as he may deem most advantageous; and the proceeds of such 
sale or sales shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States : Provided, 
That the directions of this section relating to the disposition of sealskins and 
the proceeds thereof shall be subject to the provisions of any treaty hereafter 
made by the United States for the protection of seal life. 

2 Com parr.— Act of April 6, 1894, section 3 and section 4 (28 Stats., 53), 
licenses and log books required on board sealing vessels. 



26 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

to do of perform, or cause to be done or performed, any ^ind every act which 
the United States is authorized or obliged to do or perform by the provisions 
of the tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles of said convention: 
and to enable the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to carry out the provisions 
of the said eleventh article there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four hundred thousand 
dollars. 1 

Sec. 12. That the term " pelagic sealing " where used in this Act, shall be 
taken to mean the killing, capturing, or pursuing in any manner whatsoever 
of fur seals while the same are in the water. The word " person " where used 
in this Act shall extend and be applied to partnerships and corporations. 

Sec. 13. That this Act shall take effect immediately, and shall continue in 
force until the termination of the said convention. 

STATEMENT OF ME, CHARLES EARL, SOLICITOR OF THE DEPART- 
MENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

Mr. Earl. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have really very 
little to say. Mr. Anderson has gone over the proposed legislation 
very carefully. I can only say that the Department of Commerce 
and Labor is very much interested in the legislation inasmuch as it 
will have the administration of the law if it is passed, and that a 
great deal of care has been taken in our department, as well as in 
the other departments consulted, in the framing of the bill. It occurs 
to me, however, that it might be well to state, in a word, just what 
the existing legislation is with respect to the killing of seals. As a 
result of the Paris award, so far as Great Britain and the United 
States are concerned, the killing of fur seals at sea by subjects of 
either of those countries was prohibited within a zone of 60 miles 
around the Pribilof Islands during certain seasons of the year, but 
so far as the award was concerned either party was at liberty to 
engage in pelagic sealing anywhere in the open sea outside of the 
60-mile zone. 

The United States, however, enacted legislation which absolutely 
prohibited its citizens and all persons owing allegiance to the United 
States from killing fur seals, either at sea or on land. Great Britain 
did not pass any such legislation as that, so that the subjects of Great 
Britain — Canadians — were permitted to engage in pelagic sealing 
outside of the 60-mile zone. So far as all other nations were con- 
cerned, they were at liberty to kill seals in the sea outside of the 
ordinary territorial waters, the 3-mile limit. So far as the United 
States citizens were concerned, however, they were absolutely pro- 
hibited from killing seals, with one exception. Under legislation 
which went back, I think, about 40 years, a little over 40 years, the 
exclusive privilege to take seals on the Pribilof Islands was leased, 
and the lessee of that privilege for the past 20 years was the North 
American Commercial Co. 

In 1910 this lease expired, and the law which provided for the 
leasing of this exclusive privilege contemplated that a new lease 
should be entered into. At the instance of the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor and at the instance of the President that law was 
repealed and a new act was passed which prohibited the leasing of 
the privilege but placed within the discretion of the Secretary of the 

*Act April 21, 1910, section 10, (36 Stats., 326).—* * * and there is hereby 
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
the sum of $150,000 for carrying into effect the provisions of this act. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 27 

Department of Commerce and Labor the question whether any seals 
should be taken or not, and limited his right to take seals to male 
seals only, and provided that a certain reservation of male seals should 
always be made. The result is that at the present time all persons 
are forbidden to kill seals in the United States, except such killing 
as may be permitted or authorized by the Secretary of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, and that killing is done under the 
supervision of Government agents. The Secretary of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor also has the authority to prevent any 
killing of seals whatever if in his judgment it is desirable for the 
preservation of the herd. 

The Chairman. In your judgment, do you think the Government 
of the United States should kill any of the surplus male seals when 
this law takes effect? 

Mr. Earl. Well, I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that the question 
whether the surplus male seals should be killed or not was very, 
very earnestly considered by the department after the passage of 
this law vesting the Secretary with discretion whether to kill surplus 
male seals or not, and acting on the best advice that he could obtain, 
and from the highest authorities that he could consult, it was con- 
cluded by him that it was desirable to kill off the surplus males for 
two reasons: First, that there would be less of a catch for the pe- 
lagic sealers, and, second, that the surplus males were not needed for 
the better growth and development of the herd. In the Secretary's 
annual report he says that if that discretion continues to reside with 
him that he will probably pursue the same policy, of course, guarding 
the number of seals to be taken. 

Mr. Sharp. Does he lease that right at present ? 

Mr. Earl. No; the law prohibits the making of any lease. The 
only killing permitted under the law at the present time is a killing 
of male seals. Females and young seals are not to be killed, but male 
seals over a year old may be killed, provided that the preservation 
of the herd will not be damaged thereby. 

Mr. Garner. Killed by whom? 

Mr. Earl. Under the direction of the Secretary of the Department 
of Commerce and Labor. They are actually killed by the natives, 
but under the supervision of Government agents. 

Mr. Sharp. What becomes of the seals that are killed, and how 
extensive has that been during the past few years ? 

Mr. Earl. For the past two years, under the regulations of the 
Secretary, what per cent was reserved, Mr. Lembkey ? 

Mr. Lembkey. From 16 to 20 per cent. 

Mr. Earl. From 16 to 20 per cent was reserved of the male seals. 

Mr. Garner. What number of seals was killed ? 

Mr. Earl. About 12,000 last year. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Bowers has just returned from Europe, after 
selling the sealskins ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. And the money derived from the sale of seals this 
year was a great deal more than heretofore ? 

Mr. Earl. Very much more. Under the lease made 20 years ago 
the Government got about $150,000 a year from sealskins taken. For 
the past two years, since the killing has been done under the super- 



28 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

vision of the department, the Government has received nearly $100,000 
a year. 

Mr. Garner. And this year he received for the Government a larger 
price than the pelagic sealers, did he not? 

Mr. Earl. I believe so; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Can you give statistics as to about the number of 
seals now in the herd on the Pribilof Islands ? 

Mr. Earl. Well, Mr. Lembkey is here; he is the Government -jgent 
in charge of the islands and he can give you accurate figures in that 
regard. 

The Chairman. I am glad to know that. Have you any statistics 
with you, or have you statistics in your department showing the num- 
ber in the herd on the Commander Islands ? 

Mr. Earl. The department has the figures, but I do not have tbem. 

The Chairman. Will you be good enough to send those figures 
here so we can put then in the record? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

The Chairman. The Commander Islands belong to the Russian 
Government and the Pribilof Islands belong to the United States 
Government ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

The Chairman. We would like to have for the record the number 
of seals in the herd on the Pribilof Islands and also the number of 
seals in the herd on the Commander Islands. 

Mr. Earl. Would you also like the number in the herd on the Jap- 
anese Islands? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Ofice of the Solicitor, 
Washington, January 4, 1912. 

Note. — It is understood that the number of seals resorting to the Commander 
Islands at the present time, constituting the Russian herd, and the number of 
seals resorting to Robben Island at the present time, constituting the Jap- 
anese herd, are approximately the numbers stated in articles 12 and 13 of the 
treaty, as indicating the size of the herds below which killing may be sus- 
pended by the respective governments without rendering them liable to make 
any allowance of shares of skins to other nations, namely, 18,000 for the 
Russian herd and 6,500 for the Japanese herd. 

C. B. 

Mr. Sharp. I suppose those seals are sold through competitive 
bidding? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; sold at public auction. They are sold in London. 
London is the world's market for sealskins. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Right in this connection: Has not a proposition 
been made to the department to sell those seals in the United States; 
that is, at St. Louis, New York, or some other place ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; the department has had that proposition under 
consideration. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Would it not be just as desirable to dispose of 
them in this country as to take them to London ? 

Mr. Earl. I know that matter was very carefully considered by 
the Secretary, and he decided, for the present at least, that the sale 
should be made in London. London is the seal market of the world, 
and firms there that deal in sealskins have been in existence for hun- 
dreds of years ; for generations. They are very expert in the hand- 
ling of the skins and drying of the skins before the sale. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 29 

Mr. Garner. Is it not a fact that there are only two firms in the 
world that have knowledge of the process by which the sealskins 
can be properly taken care of? 

Mr. Earl. I understand so, but about that I can not speak with 
authority. 

Mr. Garner. I happened to have a conversation with Mr. Bowers, 
who has just returned from London, and that was the information 
I got from him, that the reason you can not sell them in this country 
is because nobody knows the process. 

Mr. Bartholdt. I have constituents in St. Louis who are in- 
terested in this matter, and they tell me that this secret is known 
now, and besides that I noticed in the newspaper reports to the 
effect that a Leipzig firm purchased the majority of the seals, and 
those people could come here as well as have the sale there. 

Mr. Earl. Of course, under the law the Secretary may sell the 
skins in such market as he deems advisable, and he is at any time 
at liberty to conduct the sale in an American market if the American 
market seems to offer the best advantages. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Earl, just a question or two : Tf this 
convention is carried out in good faith by the high contracting par- 
ties and this act becomes a law, pelagic sealing in the north Pacific 
would practicallv cease? 

Mr. Earl. That is the belief. 

The Chairman. And they are killing surplus male seals on the 
Pribilof Islands to-day because they are unnecessary for breeding 
purposes ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; because they are unnecessary for breeding pur- 
poses; and it is believed, or it is said by those naturalists who have 
made a study of seal life, that too many males do not bring about the 
best development of the herd. Of course, I am not competent to 
speak of the scientific side of it. 

The Chairman. But the whole matter under the law is in the 
hands of the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor 
to do in that connection what he deems advisable ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; and he, as I have said, has taken the advice of all 
the naturalists and biologists who have been on the islands and who 
have studied seal life there ; he has taken the most expert advice to 
be had in the United States. 

Mr. Garner. All of the scientists are not agreed as to the policy 
to be pursued ? 

Mr. Earl. I think Prof. Elliott is the principal opponent that the 
Secretary had. 

Mr. Garner. But it is a fact that all the scientists do not agree 
as to the best policy to be pursued ? 

Mr. Earl. That is true in a qualified sense. 

The Chairman. In this connection I desire to read and have put 
in the record this telegram just received by myself. It says : 

Hon. William Stjlzer, Chairman. 

Washington. D. C: 
Unable to be present. Camp Fire Club earnestly urges 15-year closed ser.son 
for seal. Hope and trust bill to that end will be favorably reported by yonr 
committee. 

A. S. Houghton, Vice Chairman, 
Committee on Game Protective Legislation and Preserves. 

Camp Fire Club of America. 



30 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Garner. Where is that located, in New York? 

The Chairman. Yes. The Camp Fire Club of America is doing 
a great work for the preservation of game of the country, and in 
connection with this telegram I would like to ask you whether the 
department would have any objection to Congress making a closed 
season on seals on the Pribilof Islands for 15 years? 

Mr. Earl. Well, Mr. Chairman, on that question I do not think T 
could answer for the department. 

Mr. Garner. May I ask you just in that connection whether the 
department would have any objection to Congress legislating rather 
than turning it over to the Secretary of the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor to determine what ought to be done ? 

Mr. Earl. No, Mr. Congressman, it would not. I would like to say 
a word on the question of those, rules and regulations. The rules 
and regulations which the President is authorized to make under this 
act, I may say, could under no possibility be regarded as legislation, 
in my opinion. 

Mr. Garner. He can determine whether one seal shall be killed or 
80 per cent of the males? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; but that is not legislation. 

Mr. Garner. He can determine that much? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. Well, I think that is the point at issue, or at lenst 
it might be the point of issue. Congress might determine that there 
ought not to be a single seal killed for 15 years. 

Mr. Earl. I ought to say that this act that is now before the com- 
mittee has nothing to do with the Secretary's discretion to kill any 
number. 

Mr. Garner. I agree with you there; it is a different law entirely; 
I understand that. 

Mr. Earl. The power of regulation conferred by this ac' is en- 
tirely with the President, and relates only to the provisions of this 
act. It gives the President authority to make rules and regulations 
to carry the act into effect. The President can not add anything to 
the law nor can he take anything from the law; he can not make 
anything unlawful which the law does not make unlawful; he can 
simply make rules and regulations which, as Chief Justice Marshall 
said, refer to matters of detail that can not be anticipated ordinarily 
by the Legislature and are necessary to give practical effect to what 
the Legislature has enacted. And I may say that authority to make 
rules and regulations has been conferred upon the executive depart- 
ments of the Government ever since the beginning of the Govern- 
ment, but very rarely, however, is it coupled with the provision im- 
posing a penalty for violation, although recently I have read a de- 
cision, or one or two decisions, in which the courts have sustained an 
act of that kind. 

Mr. Levy. You say the skins brought $400,000 this year? 

Mr. Earl. Nearly that. 

Mr. Levy. Why was it that the year before there were so many 
pelts brought here that were nearly worthless? 

Mr. Earl. I do not think there were. 

Mr. Levy. They said they killed a great many young seals, I think 
the year before, was it not ? 



PROTECTION OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 31 

Mr. Earl. I know that assertion has been made, but it has been 
disproved. 

Mr. Levy. It has ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Levy. I was so informed by a lot of furriers who said they 
were at the sale. 

Mr. Earl. None of the seals taken last year were under a year old 
and none of them, I believe, under 2 years, practically. 

Mr. Levy. Was it not the year before ? 

Mr. Earl. Well, the same is true of the year before. 

The Chairman. Have you concluded ? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. 

Mr. Harrison. Let me ask you about section 8, which provides that 
suit may be brought in the district court of Alaska or in any district 
court of the United States in California, Oregon, or Washington. Is 
it your construction that if a party violates any of the provisions of 
this act and lives 4 miles out of Alaska, he could be prosecuted in 
the courts of California? 

Mr. Earl. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. Harrison. That is optional with the United States? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. You see, the crime is committed on the high seas, 
and then it is a matter of legislation to fix the jurisdiction of the 
courts — that is, where the offense may be tried; I think that is all 
right. Moreover, that provision was taken from the act of December 
29, 1897, and quite a number of convictions have been had under it. 

Mr. Goodwin. The reason the act grants jurisdiction to Alaska 
cr the seaboard States on the Pacific side, I suppose, is that the 
crime would be committed nearer to those States than to the Atlantic 
Coast States or interior States? 

Mr. Earl. Yes. j 

Mr. Goodwin. And this provision is made for the sake of con- 
venience? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; the crimes would be committed at sea and these 
places would be 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). The nearest points? 

Mr. Earl. Yes; the nearest points where the offenders might be 
tried. 

Mr. Garner. You seem to be familiar with this bill. I notice 
section 13 provides — 

That this act shall take effect immediately, and shall continue in force until 
the termination of the said convention. 

Would that foreclose a future Congress from repealing this act? 

Mr. Earl. No. 

Mr. Garner. Then what is the object of putting it in there? 

Mr. Earl. It is simply to limit the life of the act; it is not to de- 
prive Congress of any power of repeal; it is merely to limit the life 
of the act. 

Mr. Kendall. It is the same principle that was involved in the 
Niagara Falls statute. 

Mr. Garner. I understand that. We simply say by this act: We 
will give to the Senate and President the right to repeal it at any 
time they see proper. We are simpty declaring that when the treaty 
comes to an end this act shall come to an end; but as it is now it 



32 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

gives the President and the Senate the right to repeal an act of 
Congress. 

Mr. Kendall. In the absence of the convention the statute would 
not be effective in any event. 

Mr. Garner. I understand that. The mere repeal of the treaty, 
by abrogation or otherwise, would repeal this. 

Mr. Earl. I think the treaty is limited to 15 years. 

Mr. Sharp. From what date? 

Mr. Earl. From the 15th of December; and this being special 
legislation necessary to carry out the provisions of a special treaty, 
it was deemed proper to insert that language in the act, but, of 
course, we are not at all concerned with that feature of it. 

(Thereupon a recess was taken until 2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee reassembled pursuant to taking a recess. 
The Chairman. Mr. Earl, have you finished your statement? 
Mr. Earl. Unless you wish to ask me some questions. 
The Chairman. We will now hear from Mr. Lembkey. Will you 
please give your name and official position to the reporter. 

STATEMENT OF Mil. W. I. LEMBKEY. 

Mr. Lembkey. My official position is that of agent in charge of the 
seal fisheries of Alaska, under the Department of Commerce and 
Labor. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1867 

Mr. Garner (interposing). Just before you start, is your residence, 
your office, in Washington ? 

Mr. Lembkey. My office is in the Fish Commission during the time 
that I am in Washington. However, I am on the seal islands every 
summer during the sealing season. I have spent six winters there. I 
have been on the seal islands every summer since 1899. 

Mr. Chairman, in 1867 Alaska was ceded to the United States by 
treaty, and its effectiveness depended upon an appropriation of 
money by Congress, and therefore virtually required ratification by 
the House of Representatives as well as by the Senate. In 1870 Con- 
gress passed a law which required the Secretary of the Treasury 
should lease to the highest bidder at intervals of 20 years the right to 
take the surplus male seals in the Pribilof herd. After competitive 
bidding that lease was granted to the Alaska Commercial Co., which 
held the franchise during the entire 20-year period. 

In 1890, in pursuance of the law already mentioned, the Secretary 
of the Treasury again leased to the highest bidder the same privilege 
for a further period of 20 years, and the successful bidder in that 
case was the ISTorth American Commercial Co. That lease expired in 
1910. In 1910 Congress passed another law which repealed the for- 
mer law which required bids to be advertised for for the sealing 
privilege, and required that any seals taken from the seal islands 
should be taken under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor, through agents or officers of the department. The Gov- 
ernment therefore, during the years 1910 and 1911, has been taking 



PKOTECTIOlSr OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTEB. 33 

the surplus young males from the Pribilof herd and marketing their 
skins in London in the same manner, virtually, as had been done 
by both of the previous lessees. During the 40 years of the leases 
from those two little islands alone the Government had received as 
revenue from the taking of the sealskins nearly $11,000,000, which 
is some millions in excess of the $7,200,000 which this Government 
paid in 1867 for the entire Territory of Alaska. 

I wish to say an explanatory word with regard to pelagic sealing. 
Pelagic sealing means the killing of the fur seals in the water by 
means of small boats operating from a schooner as a base. The prac- 
tice was almost unknown until the year 1881, when some adventur- 
ous spirit fitted out a schooner on the Pacific coast and went into the 
Bering Sea for the purpose of seeing how many seals he could cap- 
ture in the water. His success was more even than he anticipated, and 
in the following year his vessel was accompanied by a number of 
other schooners bent upon the same errand. The industry of pelagic 
sealing increased from 1881 until 1891 when, if I remember correctly, 
65 schooners operated in taking seals from the Pribilof herd as well 
as the Commander or Russian herd on the opposite side of the Pacific 
Ocean. These schooners secured a catch of over 60,000 Pribilof 
Islands skins, as contrasted with a land catch on the islands of only 
16,000. This pelagic killing was especially disastrous to the herd, for 
the reason that it was composed of from 60 to 85 per cent of breed- 
ing females — females with milk. 

The killing of a female seal, which, by the way, when in the Be- 
ring Sea Islands is pregnant, involves the loss of the life not only 
of the mother seal, but of the unborn seal which she will deliver the 
following year and her nursing pup on shore — which dies of starva- 
tion, because a female seal will not nurse the pup of any other cow. 
The loss of a breeding female entails the loss of three lives, and it 
should require no further explanation from me to show the commit- 
tee how destructive the practice of pelagic sealing is to the seal herd. 

The land catch, on the other hand, is composed entirely of young 
males between the ages of 2 and 3 years at the present time and 
2 and 4 years during the periods of the two leases which I have 
already mentioned. 

It is not necessary to state to the committee that the fur seal is 
a highly polygamous animal. The sexes are demonstrated to be born 
in equal numbers, and it has also been shown that not more than 1 
male in every 30 is necessary for the purposes of propagation. The 
remaining 29 can therefore be killed, although our killing has never 
included twenty-nine thirtieths, by any means. Speaking, however, 
from the biological standpoint, the killing of twenty-nine thirtieths 
of all the surplus males would not result in any depletion of the 
birth rate, for the reason that sufficient males would have survived 
from the killing to properly impregnate all females. 

We therefore contend, and it has been conclusively demonstrated, 
that such killing as has been carried on during the American occu- 
pation of the Pribilof Islands has never had any effect upon the birth 
rate, and therefore has never injured the future increase of the species. 

The practice of pelagic sealing was soon realized to be destructive 
to the herd and to its increase, and the officers of the Government 
took measures to abolish the practice which resulted in the Paris 

22875—12 3 



34 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

agreement of 1892, which afforded a measure of protection to the 
seal herd, but did not provide sufficient protection to prevent the 
females from being killed in such number as to cause an increase in 
the herd. The Paris tribunal, by the way, bound, as you know, only 
the Governments of Great Britain and the United States. All other 
Governments were not bound, and therefore did not need to observe 
any of the provisions of the Paris award. The Japanese Govern- 
ment, or, rather, the citizens of Japan, began to engage in the prac- 
tice of pelagic sealing, coming very close to the islands for their seals. 
While the Canadians more or less relinquished the practice, the fleet 
of Japan began to increase, until last year there- were no Canadian 
sealers in the sea, so far as I know, whereas there was a Japanese 
fleet of, possibly, 35. 

i I have made this preliminary statement, Mr. Chairman, with the 
idea that the committee may understand some of the previous facts 
in connection with the seal herd. That is the only statement I wish to 
make, and I would be perfectly willing to have the gentlemen of the 
committee, the chairman, or others, ask me questions if they wish to. 

Mr. Garner. There is one question which occurs to me at this point. 
This present treaty is between what nations ? 

The Chairman. Between Russia, Japan, Great Britain, and the 
United States. 

Mr. Garner. His statement was that the treaty of 1892 was only 
binding on Great Britain and the United States. Would this treaty 
bind any other nation except those who participated in it — Russia, 
Japan, Great Britain, and the United States? 

Mr. Lembkey. It would not seem to. 

Mr. Garner. Then, suppose some enterprising gentleman living 
in the Republic of Mexico should undertake to secure schooners and 
to continue that practice? 

The Chairman. He would be a pirate. 

Mr. Garner. That is what I wanted to know. 

The Chairman. Absolutely. 

Mr. Lembkey. From my little knowledge of international law I 
should say that the enterprising gentleman from Mexico would have 
a perfect right to kill seals. 

Mr. Garner. I do not know that he would be a pirate in this in- 
stance when the treaty only applied to Great Britain, Japan. Russia, 
and the United States. 

Mr. Lembkey. The only deterrent point in that connection would 
be that the adhesion of those four great nations to the principle of 
the nonkilling of the seals in the water would establish so strong a 
precedent, in my opinion, that a nation the size of Mexico, for in- 
stance, would hesitate greatly before she allowed an industry of that 
character to exist under her flag. 

The Chairman. When this bill becomes a law it will be impossible, 
will it not, for a ship engaged in pelagic sealing in the North Pacific 
to make port? 

, Mr. Lembkey. There is no port on the Pacific coast south of the 
thirtieth degree of latitude to which a sealing schooner could go for 
supplies or shelter if this treaty becomes effective. 

The Chairman. If the ship goes into any port north of that, she 
would be seized? 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 35 

Mr. Lembkey. I would not say that she could be seized, because I 
believe that common humanity would allow her to seek refuge in a 
port if she were in stress. 

The Chairman. The bill says so. 

Mr. Lembkey. Then I withdraw that statement. 

The Chairman. Under the bill she would not be allgwed to go 
there for supplies. 

Mr. Kendall. A shipwrecked vessel would not be excluded from 
any port if that were necessary in order to save life ? 

Mr. Sulzer. But the ship would be seized. 

Mr. Lembkey. For the purposes of pelagic sealing the Pacific coast 
north of the thirtieth degree of latitude is absolutely closed to vessels 
of any nation engaged in sealing. 

Mr. Kendall. What was the numerical strength of the herd at the 
expiration of the lease in 1910 ? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1910 the herd numbered approximately 130,000 
seals. 

Mr. Kendall. What was it in 1870? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1870 it was estimated at anywhere from 2,000,000 
to 4,500,000. It had probably reached the point of the greatest ex- 
pansion, where there was no more room for additional animals to 
maintain themselves. 

Mr. Kendall. Under the lease system the herd was very rapidly 
approaching extinction ? 

Mr. Lembkey. It was. Of course this diminution occurred during 
the leasing system, but it occurred from causes absolutely discon- 
nected from the leasing system. The killing of the seals on land did 
not cause the diminution which did occur during that period. 

Mr. Kendall. Your theory would be that it was almost entirely 
due to the pelagic sealing becoming general? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir ; the killing of the females in the water was 
the cause of the decrease. 

Mr. Cooper. Can you tell a male from a female by its head when 
tlie}^ are swimming? 

Mr. Lembkey. That is almost impossible, except that you can 
always tell a very old male seal. He is so much larger than the female 
that you can distinguish him readily in the water, but it is impossible 
to distinguish a 3-year-old male and female in the water. 

Mr. Cooper. How can you tell a 3-year-old male from a 3-year-old 
female on the land? 

Mr. Lembkey^. There are certain points which may not be apparent 
to the casual observer, but which, however, are sufficiently plain to 
those who are engaged in the killing of seals commercially. 

Mr. Cooper. After you get the skin off? If you see them in the 
water can you tell by the head a 3-year-old male from a 3-year-old 
female ? 

Mr. Lembkey'. We can not tell at a distance. Let me explain the 
practice of killing the seals on the islands. It will take but a minute, 
and probably will give you a pretty clear idea : In driving or killing 
seals on the islands for their skins breeding seals are never dis- 
turbed; that is to say, breeding males and females are never visited 
by those men who drive up seals to be killed for commercial purposes. 



36 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

An old bull, as described this morning, maintains a family and 
exercises a very great amount of vigilance in seeing that no other 
seal interferes with his family. For that reason the younger male 
seals, those from which the skins are taken, are not allowed to " haul," 
as it is called, among the breeding seals. They therefore come on 
land at spots entirely separate from the breeding area, and it is only 
from these hauling grounds that drives are made. Therefore in 
driving the bachelors from the hauling ground we feel morally cer- 
tain, until a certain date in the year, that the drive which comes 
from that ground has no females in it. After the 20th of July — 
the killing season closes on the 1st of August— the rookery formation 
breaks up, the families disintegrate, the females have all been served, 
and they wander at will over the breeding grounds as well as the 
hauling grounds. After that date, therefore, the bachelor hauling 
grounds contain a gradually increasing percentage of female seals, 
and at that time greater and greater vigilance must be exercised in 
the killing to prevent the clubbing of a female seal through accident 
because of her close resemblance to an eligible young male. It is 
almost impossible to distinguish in every instance a 3-year-old male 
from a 3-year-old female, and the greatest care has to be exercised 
that the females are not killed. This occurs during only five days 
of the season, however, and the remaining portion of the season con- 
tains no menace to the fur-seal females. 

Mr. Sharp. What is the average or normal age of the seals ; what 
length of years do they live? 

Mr. Lembkey. So far as we have been able to determine, and we 
have studied the question very thoroughly, a male seal lives to the 
age of 12 years and the maximum age of a female seal, so far as we 
have been able to determine, is about the same, 12 to 13 years. 

Mr. Sharp. Are they rather prolific ? 

Mr. Lembkey. The female bears one young annually, after the 
second }^ear. She conies into heat in the second year and bears her 
first young in the third year, and annually thereafter the females 
bring forth one young. The instances of twins are so rare as to be 
negligible. 

Mr. Levy. How is the killing of the seals managed, under your 
supervision, or in what way? 

Mr. Lembkey. It is under my general supervision ; yes, sir. Dur- 
ing the period of the leases the representatives of the department 
occupied virtually the status of inspectors ; that is to say, they were 
present at every killing, actively present, and carefully scrutinized 
those seals that were being killed and also saw to it that the regula- 
tions of the department were thoroughly enforced. But they did not 
participate in the active management. Since the leasing system the 
management of killing has been actively in the hands of the Govern- 
ment agents. 

The Chairman. How many fur. seals did you kill last season? 

Mr. Lembkey. Twelve thousand and six. 

The Chairman. Out of a herd of what number? 

Mr. Lembkey. At the end of the killing season of 1911 there were 
127,745? 

The Chairman. In your judgment, you believe that there are over 
100,000 seals now in the Pribilof herd ? 

Mr. Lembkey. There are over 100,000 seals in the Pribilof herd. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 37 

The Chairman. How many seals, in your estimation, if you know, 
are there in the Commander herd? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have no exact data on that subject, but I can give 
it not more than 8,000 to 10,000. 

The Chairman. And how many in the so-called Japanese herd ? 

Mr. Lembkey. They have never given out any information as to 
the size of the herd, but I do not believe that they have over a couple 
of thousand. That is just my individual opinion, however. 

Mr. Sharp. What would be the effect on this herd as to increasing 
or diminishing the number if jou did not kill any of the males for a 
number of years? 

Mr. Lembkey. There would be absolutely no effect as regards in- 
crease or decrease, for the reason that there are only so many cows, 
no matter how mairy males you have. If you are raising poultry 
and have 20 hens you can not get any more eggs if you have one 
cock for every hen than if you have one cock for the entire flock. 

Mr. Garner. You do not mean that statement in its broad sense, 
that there would not be any difference in the number if you did not 
kill any of the seals for five 3 T ears, because you would have the males 
on hand that you had not killed ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I mean this, that the number of females in the 
herd measures the producing capacity of the herd. 

Mr. Garner. If you did not kill the males you would have that 
number of males at the end of the five years ? 

Mr. Lembkey. To the extent of the increased number of males, of 
course ; but you would not have a single additional pup born. Thai 
is the point I am making — that the herd would not increase any 
faster. 

Mr. Sharp. Then there is an error in the law of nature as to pro- 
ducing the seals? 

Mr. Lembkey. I would not go so far as to criticize nature, but I 
believe it has been demonstrated in certain classes of animals that a 
greater increase occurs with a judicious selection of the males than if 
the} 7 run promiscuously without selection. 

Mr. Kendall. There was no judicious selection prior to 1870, when 
the herd had accumulated a number over 2,000,000 ? 

Mr. Lembkey. The Russians from the time of the discovery of 
these islands in 1786 down to the relinquishment of the territory by 
Russia in 1867 took seals annually. 

Mr. Kendall. Without distinction as to sex? 

Mr. Lembkey. Until 1847 there was no distinction as to sex, and 
the lack of regulation forbidding the killing of females during the 
Russian period brought about the same result of a decrease in the 
herd as has now been brought about by the killing of these females in 
the water. 

The Chairman. Last year the Government of the United States 
killed about one-tenth of the entire herd ; is not that so ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you think the Government should devastate 
them to that extent every year? 

Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the close killing 
of 1910 was predicated upon the fact that every seal that could be 
killed under the law that was not killed on land went into the water, 



38 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

and increased the catch of the pelagic seal fleet to that extent We 
therefore felt that it was the better policy to kill as many seals on 
land as could be properly killed with due regard to the law and 
regulations. - . ,, ' : 

The Chairman. The pelagic sealers kill the males and the females; 

that is the deviltry of it all. 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir; they are both subject to it. 

The Chairman. We will stop pelagic sealing entirely by this law. 
I want your opinion, on account of your knowledge and experience, 
whether we should now go on in the future killing every year a part 
of the surplus males in the herd? 

Mr. Lembkey. I will state in advance that I do not believe m 
the absolute cessation of land killing, but I will state that since 
pelagic sealing will be abolished under this treaty and since, of 
course, the herd will increase, that an additional number of young 
males should be spared to provide for this increase in females. I 
do not believe that the killing under this treaty should be as rigorous 
as it was previous to the treaty, but I am personally strongly op- 
posed to the absolute cessation of the land killing of young males. 

Mr. Shaep. Why? I ask purely for information. You are un- 
questionably well informed on this subject. Why are you opposed 
to that; what harm would result from it? 

Mr. Lembkey. Well, in the first place, no advantage would ac- 
crue, and, as I have already said, it would not result in the birth 
of an additional pup if you should allow 100 per cent of all the 
males to mature and die. No advantage, therefore, would accrue and 
harm would come to the herd, in my opinion, through the presence 
of this greater disproportionate number of males. There would be 
as many males as females, and thousands of bulls would have no 
cows. That would constitute a serious menace alike to man and to 
the seals. 

Mr. Sharp. What is the ratio of the births between the males and 
females ? 

Mr. Lembkey. The normal ratio would be about one to thirty. 
That is to say, 1 male to 30 females is considered a rational allotment. 

Mr. Sharp. You do not quite understand my question. 

Mr. Garner. They are about equal. He made that statement be- 
fore you came in. 

Mr. Lembkey. And they are born in equal numbers. 

Mr. Sharp. About the same as human beings ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sharp. In some respects, they greatly resemble human beings 
in their affections toward each other. Is there anything in that? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. A great many stories have been circulated 
as to certain human attributes in the fur seals. As a matter of fact, 
they are creatures absolutely devoid of intelligence and absolutely 
devoid of all affection. 

Mr. Sharp. They are not the kind of seals that we see exhibited 
which show a wonderful degree of intelligence? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. These seals have absolutely no intelligence 
from our standpoint, and they are governed by an overwhelming in- 
stinct and that alone. They have no intelligence and, of course, are 
not guided by that. I have seen a fur seal attempting for 10 minutes 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 39 

to get past a wheelbarrow by climbing over it, whereas, as a matter 
of fact, if it had gone a few feet on either side it could have passed 
it without trouble. It had no intelligence, however, and continued 
for a matter of several minutes to attempt to crawl over this obstacle 
and practically wore itself out in attempting to do that. 

Mr. Garner. How many employees have you looking after this 
seal herd ? 

Mr. Lembkey. There are four agents, one in charge and three as- 
sistants. That comprised the entire force during the period of the 
leases. Since the Government has taken practical charge of all af- 
fairs up there, the administrative force has not been increased, but 
the employees include the doctors and school-teachers, which the 
lessee provided, under the lease, for the natives. 

The Chairman. How many natives live on the Pribilof Islands? 

Mr. Lembkey. The population of both islands equals about 300. 

The Chairman. And how many white people? 

Mr. Lembkey. There are no white residents. The only white peo- 
ple who live there are the employees of the Government. 

The Chairman. How many employees of the Government are 
white people? 

Mr. Lembkey. On St. Paul Island there is an agent— I think I can 
give you the number — there are seven white people in addition to the 
four agents. 

The Chairman. What is the cost to the Government of the main- 
tenance of those stations ? 

Mr. Lembkey. The 1910 salaries paid by the Government, includ- 
ing, of course, the salaries of the agents, amounted to $14,430. The 
total expenditures on account of operations for 1910 were $100,903. 
There was a total gross income from revenue derived from the sale of 
sealskins of $436,155.19, in the same year. The expense incident to 
the sale of these sealskins was $32,208.25, making a net income of 
$403,946.94, and deducting the cost of supervision — over $100,000, 
previously stated — makes a net revenue to the Government in 1910 
of $303,043.37 from the islands. 

Mr. Garner. If I understand you correctly the salarly list of these 
agents on the islands amounted to fourteen thousand and some dol- 
lars, and the expense of looking after this matter was about $100,000. 
Where does the $84,000 come in ? Where are the people who got that 
money. 

Mr. Lembkey. I have not the detailed expenditures of 1910 show- 
ing the particular items covered by those expenditures, but I can 
give them to you approximately. There was about $30,000 expended 
for supplies, which were taken to the islands from San Francisco for 
use in supporting the native population. There was also about 
$17,000 or $18,000 expended for the charter of a steamer to take up 
the supplies to the islands and to bring down the sealskins and the 
cost O'f furnishing the vessel with coal. Those comprised the main 
expenditures. Of course there were some smaller items, which 
brought the total up to that figure. 

The Chairman. Could not the revenue cutters take up the supplies 
and bring down the pelts ? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Why not? 



40 PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Lembkey. A supply vessel is required to be specially fitted 
for that purpose. No vessel of the United States, except the few 
employed as freight transports, are so fitted. There is no room in a 
revenue cutter for the storage of supplies and there are no facilities, 
if there were room, for getting those supplies into the ship or out of 
it again, because she has not the necessary hoisting apparatus nor 
the hatchways which will allow supplies to be put into the hold and 
to be taken out. If you were to attempt to use revenue cutters or other 
vessels of the United States you would virtually have to take your 
supplies in your vest pocket and run down a stairway with them, 
and take them out the same way. There is no provision made for 
the expeditious loading and discharging of vessels of the United 
States, because they are not fitted as freight carriers or intended to 
be such. 

Mr. Garner. As I understand you, $30,000 was spent for supplies 
and $18,000 to fit out a ship. Did it cost $32,000 to market the 
skins % 

Mr. Lembkey. The $32,000 is made up principally of the commis- 
sion which was paid to the factor in London, the auctioneer, Lamp- 
son & Co., who sold those skins, and who, of course, charged the usual 
commission for the sale. There was also freight and insurance upon 
those skins — freight", of course, from San Francisco to London, and 
insurance from that point. 

Mr. Garner. Would it not be advisable to put into the hearing that 
statement as to the items of expense ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I am sure that the Fish Commission will be ex- 
tremely glad to furnish that data. 

The Chairman. Will you be good enough to hand that data to 
the reporter to be included in the hearings ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I will be glad to do so. 

The Chairman. Assuming, Mr. Lembkey, that there was a closed 
season on the Pribilof herd for a period of 10 years, what, in your 
opinion, would be the number in the herd at the expiration of that 
time ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I regret to state that the increase would not be as 
phenomenal as has been held out before this and other committees. 
As nearly as I can approximate it, the increase in seal life which 
would result from an absolute cessation of pelagic sealing would 
equal 100 per cent every nine years. That is to say, the herd would 
double itself every nine years. I am willing to say eight years. We 
will say the herd will double itself every eight years. Now, if we 
should start in 1911 with approximately 50,000 breeding females, in 
1919 we would have 100,000 breeding females, representing an in- 
crease of 100 per cent within a period of eight years. During the 
next eight years, however, the 100,000 breeding females would in- 
crease to 200,000, representing a net increase in the period of 16 years 
of 150,000 breeding females, and, of course, the next eight years would 
see 400,000 breeding females in the herd. While they would increase 
at the same ratio, the numerical increase would be much greater as 
the herd became larger. 

The Chairman. We will assume that there are 50,000 breeding- 
females in the herd at the present time? 

Mr. Lembkey. There are, including the 2-year-old females. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 41 

The Chairman. And by the operation of natural law there will be 
25,000 breeding females born the following year? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In 4 years there would be about 175,000 breeding 
females, at that ratio, would there not ? 

Mr. Lembkey. At that ratio.; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have told us from your investigations that a 
cow seal has one pup every year ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that the sexes are about equal ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So your proportion of annual increase is entirely 
out of the way ? 

Mr. Garner. There is a disproportion as to the figures ? 

Mr. Sttlzer. Yes. 

Mr. Lembkey. According to the chairman's statement the increase 
will be much larger than the increase stated by me, but we must pro- 
vide for a certain death rate from natural causes. That death rate 
is in the neighborhood of 50 per cent among pups and 10 per cent 
among the others, and in figuring the increase you must provide for 
the death rate from natural causes alone by at least the percentages 
stated. 

The Chairman. That applies to both the males and females? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. The increase will be in the nature of 
about 100 per cent every 8 years. 

Mr. Levy. As to the increase under the present system, when was 
the low ebb ? 

Mr. Lembkey. At the present time there are fewer animals than 
ever before, but the decrease this last year was in the neighborhood 
of 5 per cent in the whole herd. 

Mr. Levy. There is no truth in the report that the seals were ruth- 
lessly killed in 1910 when they first came under your supervision ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Absolutely none. 

Mr. Levy. There have been statements made that very small seals 
were ruthlessly killed and that the skins were sold in London for a 
very small price. I think that was last year. 

Mr. Lembkey. A great many statements have been made aspersing 
the management by the seal agents since this matter was put under 
the Government's control, and I think those statements can be traced 
to one source only, and I think the gentleman is in the room who is 
responsible for all those statements. However, any statement to the 
effect that these seals have been ruthlessly killed during any period 
of time covered by the supervision of the Government officers there 
is entirely untrue. 

Mr. Levy. That is what I wanted to know. 

Mr. Kendall. Why is it that such a large proportion of the seals 
taken in pelagic sealing is females ? 

Mr. Lembkey. For the reason that the female who nurses her 
young must constantly leave the rookery and go to the feeding ground 
for food, and that after visiting the feeding ground, which may be 
150 miles off the island, away beyond the 60-mile zone prescribed by 
the Paris tribunal, she sleeps during the process of digestion, and 
when asleep is an easy prey for the hunter. 



42 PROTECTION OF FCJR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

The Chairman. Have you wintered in the Pribilof Islands? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have spent five or six winters there. I do not 
remember which. 

The Chairman. Do any of the seals remain on the islands during 
the winter? 

Mr. Lembkey. None remain during the entire winter. During 
the period from the 1st to the 15th of November, all the seals leave 
the islands, and the rookeries are entirely devoid of seal life. 

Mr. Garner. What date? 

Mr. Lembkey. From the 1st to the 15th of November. There is 
no exact date, but they leave within that period. 

Mr. Garner. How long do they remain away ? 

Mr. Lembkey. They do not return to the islands until the follow- 
ing May, when we look for the first bull. 

The Chairman. Please explain to the committee your knowledge 
of the migration of the seal herds. 

Mr. Lembkey. That has been pretty definitely mapped out. The 
seals leave the islands in a body about the time stated — about No- 
vember 15 — and appear off the coast of southern California in the 
following January or even in December, so that they make a mi- 
gration described by a straight line running from the Aleutian 
passes to the latitude of San Diego or thereabouts. After December 
they gradually work their way along the coast of the Pacific through 
the Gulf of Alaska and arrive back on the islands — the bulls are the 
first to arrive — about the 1st of May. 

Mr. Kendall. Why do they return to the islands? 

Mr. Lembkey. Solely because of the approach of the breeding 
season — to breed only. 

The Chairman. It is the rookery? 

Mr. Lembkey. That is the place for breeding, and they come 
back to it every year. 

Mr. Kendall. There is no other place where this breeding may 
go forward? 

Mr. Lembkey. There is no other place selected by the seals for 
their breeding. They do not stop at any other land on the coast of 
America for the purpose of breeding. 

Mr. Garner. Are the young delivered on this island ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Faiechild. Is any considerable number of seals taken during 
this migration? 

Mr. Lembkey. During this migration the herd is followed up by 
pelagic vessels belonging both to the Canadians and to the Japanese, 
and they take their toll, of course, on all those seals coming in con- 
tact with them. These pelagic vessels follow the herd up until the 
1st of May, I believe it is, when, according to the provisions of the 
Paris tribunal, the closed season begins and obtains until the fol- 
lowing 1st of August among the Canadians engaged in pelagic 
sealing. 

Mr. Cooper. How far do the seals go away from the Pribilof 
Islands ? 

Mr. Lembkey. From 200 to 250 miles — about 200 miles, as a rule — 
to feed. 

Mr. Cooper. And how long do tliev stav out of the water? 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 43 

Mr. Lembkey. From three to five days. I am speaking of the fe- 
males who go out in search of food. They go out varying distances 
up to 200 miles for food. After obtaining this food and digesting it 
they return and suckle their young, and when they again feel im- 
pelled by hunger to look for more food they desert the pup and 
seek food again. 

Mr. Fairchild. What is their food, chiefly? 

Mr. Lembkey. Principally fish, I should say, although they do 
eat squid and a few other things. I believe their food consists 
mainly of a certain small fish which has not been classified or 
known heretofore, if I understand it correctly, except through the 
presence of its bones in the stomach of the seal. However, Dr. 
Evermann is here and is thoroughly competent to testify on that 
point. 

Mr. Cooper. Do they dive after it ? 

Mr. Lembkey. They do, of course, dive, but they can not go be- 
yond a certain depth for food. For instance, they can not seek the 
halibut or cod, which are down at least 10 fathoms. 

Mr. Levy. You spoke about 10 per cent. Suppose for the next 
five years it was reduced to 5 per cent, would not that be a good 
idea? 

Mr. Lembkey. I must adhere to my original statement. If you 
abolished killing altogether, you would not have an extra pup born 
on the islands because of that stoppage. If you stopped the kill- 
ing, it is going to cost just as much money as it takes now to run 
the business, without any income whatever. Whereas, if you were 
to allow a reasonable number to be killed, it would not cost the 
Government a cent during this period to maintain these islands and 
this entire service, because the expense of maintenance would be 
more than equaled by the revenue which we could bring in from 
the sale of sealskins. 

Mr. Garner. You say it would not cost the Government anything 
less? 

Mr. Lembkey. It would not cost the Government a cent less if 
seal killing were stopped. We derive a revenue from the taking 
of these skins which is much more than sufficient to meet all expenses 
of maintaining the seal fisheries. 

Mr. Garner. But suppose we established a closed season, would 
the expense of looking after this herd as it is now be the same? 

Mr. Lembkey. I should say that it would. I see no reason for 
decreasing the expense. 

Mr. Foster. You think the islands have got to be policed just 
the same? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes; your laws have to be enforced, otherwise you 
would have poachers and pirates there, and the Government must 
exercise supervision over the rookeries, necessarily, and take care 
of the inhabitants on the islands. 

Mr. Foster. You mean to take care of the 300 inhabitants there? 

Mr. Lembkey. We provide food for those inhabitants, but in re- 
turn they do work, and whatever we give to them goes to them not 
in the nature of a gratuity, but as pay for services rendered; but, 
of course, we have to provide them with all the necessaries of. life, 
and the supplies are kept in the storehouses and sold to the native 
inhabitants. 



44 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Cooper. Suppose you had a statute punishing as a felony 
anybody found with sealskins in their possession, would that re- 
quire us to keep a strict watch up there ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not see how the skins could be found in the 
boats without police supervision. 

Mr. Cooper. They would be discovered when they came to land. 

Mr. Lembkey. Of course, that is true; but the point is they could 
take them to any other port in the world. 

Mr. Cooper. Does this convention make any provision for the pun- 
ishment of poachers, or anything of that kind ? 

Mr. Lembkey. It certainly provides a penalty for the violation 
of this law, but it does not, so far as I know, cover the situation 
which you mentioned. A citizen of some country, perhaps, might 
take seals and go to a port in China or the South Seas or somewhere 
else and land those skins and sell them. So far as I know, he could 
not be punished, unless his Government should go after him. The 
point is, you must have supervision over this area, otherwise there 
will be no deterrent influence there. 

Mr. Sharp. Your economic theory is, you must kill a certain 
number of these seals to defray the expense of protecting the others ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir; I make that statement in answer to that 
feature of the case. 

The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to the length of time 
a seal can remain under water without coming up to breathe? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; I have not. I believe they can stay under 
water for several minutes, but that is simply a belief which I have. 
I have noticed them stay under the water for a period of several 
minutes, and perhaps they may stay under longer. 

The Chairman. I have observed that the seals can stay under 
water for several hours. 

Mr. Lembkey. Indeed ! 

Mr. Foster. Who determines as to the sale of these sealskins in 
London ? 

Mr. Lembkey. The skins are shipped from San Francisco to the 
firm of Lampson & Co. 

Mr. Foster. Whose determination is that? 

Mr. Lembkey. Under the law, the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor has the authority to market these seals. 

Mr. Cooper. Do you know of any reason why this country could 
not easily negotiate a treaty with China, or with any other country 
which has ports like "the ones mentioned, to prohibit the landing of 
vessels containing skins in the hands of poachers in violation of this 
convention and the statutes passed to carry out the convention? 

Mr. Lembkey. Well, I can only give my opinion on that subject. 
Judging from the great difficulty which has been encountered in 
arriving at any international settlement of this question, I should 
say that any further international concessions could only be gained 
by great effort and consumption of considerable time. I have found 
out from observing the course of events that nations, as a rule, do 
not give away privileges without some compensation. You conld 
not very well ask a nation to close her ports to commerce without 
showing her some reason why. 

Mr. Foster. Mr. Lembkey, I have not studied this problem, and 
some of my questions may seem academic, but I would like to know 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 45 

whether there is anything in the law of the land, or in the treaty, or 
in this proposed statute which would prevent, for instance, a lot 
of Americans chartering a boat and going up there next summer and 
engaging in this pelagic sealing and taking the skins, Ave will say,. 
to some port in Mexico? 

The Chairman. Sections 7 and 10 of the bill cover that very fully, 
Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Garner. But, in that connection, if I may make a suggestion, 
Mr. Foster, the question I asked this morning it seems to me is quite 
pertinent, that this is a convention between four nations; and let us 
assume, as you say, some gentlemen from France or some gentlemen 
from Germany decide they want to engage in this pelagic sealing, 
and they should take their schooners up there and should kill a 
thousand seals and take them to a port in Mexico, is there any 
way to reach that situation in this bill ? 

Mr. Foster. That is something that comes up further on. What 
I was getting at was the question which our friend here raises as 
to the necessity of police supervision of that territory, and it seems 
to me that that is absolutely necessary if we want to enforce these 
laws; that while this provision might meet the situation if those 
ships are caught, but if there is no one up there on the lookout, it 
would seem to me that many would take chances of going up there 
and then taking the skins to Mexico. 

The Chairman. I understand the Government of the United 
States and other Governments maintain gunboats or revenue cutters 
in the north Pacific and Bering Sea for the purpose of enforcing 
the laws. 

Mr. Garner. I would like to ask one other question in this connec- 
tion. If the entire enforcement of this act was changed from the 
Department of Commerce and Labor to the Treasury Department, 
would there be anj^ difference with reference to the economy in the 
enforcement of the act with reference to utilizing revenue cutters and 
vessels in the service of the Treasury Department ? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir ; I do not see how there would. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question ? You have 
been up there a number of times. Do you think the revenue cutters 
that are supported by the joint action of all these powers would be 
sufficient for the protection contemplated under this statute? 

The Chairman. I think so. They do most effective service. 

Mr. Lembkey, is there anything else you would like to say? 

Mr. Lembkey. There is nothing more I have to state. 

The Chairman. If you have any data you desire to incorporate 
in your remarks, we will be very glad to have you do so. 

Mr. Lembkey. I thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN, CHIEF DIVISION OF 
ALASKA FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR. 

The Chairman. Doctor, will you be good enough to give the re- 
porter your full name and official connection with the Government? 

Dr. Evermann. My name is Barton W. Evermann, and I have 
charge of the Alaskan Fisheries Service in the Bureau of Fisheries. 

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that there is anything of any special 
importance that I should say, except I would like to emphasize this 



46 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND .SEA OTTER. 

one point : That the stopping of all killing on the islands would serve 
no useful purpose whatever, no more than to stop the killing of all 
roosters on a chicken ranch or all rams on a sheep ranch would serve 
a useful purpose. There is no more necessity for saving for breeding 
purposes all the male seals that are born than for saving all the 
roosters you might have on a chicken ranch or all the rams or boar 
pigs you might have on a farm for breeding purposes. 

Any farmer or any poultry man would kill off the surplus males 
to whatever extent he might wish to increase his flock or his herd, and 
he would kill them off for just the same reasons that we kill the 
surplus male seals. Those reasons are these : In the first place the 
saving of all of them would not add one pup to the herd. You need 
to save only enough males in insure each female becoming impreg- 
nated. That is all that is necessary. A reserve of that number will 
answer all purposes so far as breeding is concerned. Now, the others 
can be killed and should be killed for this reason, leaving all of the 
males to come upon the rookeries would be like leaving all the stal- 
lions on a horse ranch and turning them loose in the fields with the 
mares. If you have 100 mares and turn loose with them 100 stal- 
lions, if you have had any experience in stock raising, you know 
what the result would be. It would be disastrous; and the same 
thing is true regarding the fur seals. The surplus males should be 
killed because of the damage they would do, through fighting and 
otherwise, on the breeding grounds. Second, the surplus males 
should be killed because their skins are of value and can be marketed 
at a good figure and will bring a return to the Government which 
will go toward defraying the expense of maintaining and looking 
after the herd. 

The number that was killed last year and this year brought a 
money return far in excess of the expenses incident to the care of 
the herd. The number which can be killed next year, of course, will 
be greatly in excess of the expense; I mean, of course, the number 
which can be killed without a,nj danger whatever to the herd. Now, 
one of the members of the committee called attention at this point 
to the fact that if you refrained altogether from killing that the 
herd would actually be somewhat larger than it would if you killed 
the surplus males and saved all the females. That is true. There 
would be more males on the islands, but they will become useless and 
valueless. If you do not gather your apples or your eggs, periodi- 
cally, you can see that the time soon comes when even eggs become 
of little value, and that apples rot. The same thing is true with 
reference to these male seals. If you refrain from killing the 2 and 
3 and 4 year old surplus males, they pass over the next year into 
seals of 3, 4, and 5 -years, and the next year to seals of 4, 5, and 6 
years, and so on, increasing a year in age with each passing year, 
and when they have passed the age of 4 years, then their skins de- 
preciate in value, and by the time they are 5 or 6 or T years old, their 
skins are scarcety of any value at all. 

So if 3^011 saved the male seals for 15 years, as has been suggested, 
you will simply have on hand, barring those which would die a 
natural death, a considerable number of old males which are not 
needed for breeding purposes, and the skins of which are of relatively 
no value at all. So that the reason the surplus males should be 
killed is because they are a surplus and because they bring a reve- 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 47 

nue to the Government which will defray the expense, and because 
if you save them they depreciate in value and very soon become of 
no value at all. 

The point which Mr. Lembkey made regarding the possibilities of 
the increase of the herd is one that might be dwelt upon. A great 
many extravagant, wild' statements have been made regarding the 
possibility of the rehabilitation of the fur-seal herd, just as such state- 
ments are made regarding almost everything else you want to build 
up. But the rebuilding of any depleted species is a slow process nec- 
essarily. In the beginning the results do not begin to show, but in 
a few years they will, and in the course of a decade or two there is 
no reason why we should not have a large herd of Pribilof seals; 
but you can not expect anything like two or five or seven millions in 
15 years, as our friend has contended, but you can be sure of this 
fact, that the size of the herd at the end of 15 years, with the stop- 
ping of all killing on the islands will differ only in an infinitesimal 
degree from what it will be if the surplus males are killed off every 
year. 

The natives of the islands are in a sense wards of the Government, 
and it costs something to keep them. There are about 300 of them, 
and we are under obligations to look after them. They are main- 
tained by the Government, but they give value received for what the 
Government does for them. They are employed to do all kinds of 
work connected with' the fur-seal industry on the islands- Now, 
if all killing on the islands should stop, those natives will remain 
and will have to be provided for. There will be little or no work for 
them to do, but that will not decrease the expense of taking care of 
them. They will eat just as much as before. 

Mr. Foster. Are the islands barren? 

Dr. Evermann. Absolutely barren. The resources of the islands 
are fur seals and blue foxes and nothing else. 

Mr. Sharp. Did the natives come there originally for this em- 
ployment ? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. When the islands were discovered they 
were uninhabited by man, and the Eussians took natives from the 
Aleutian Islands for the purpose of employing them or using them 
in the taking of the seals. 

Mr. Cooper. How far are these islands from the Aleutian Islands? 

Dr. Evermann. About 200 miles. 

Mr. Cooper. In what direction? 

Dr. Evermann. They are north half west from Unalaska, which 
is the important point in the Aleutian Islands. 

Mr. Sharp. Are they much nearer our coast or the Asiatic coast? 

Dr. Evermann. They are much nearer our coast. 

Mr. Levy. Doctor, has the sea otter been exterminated entirely ? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir; but it is near extermination. I think the 
entire kill of sea otter last year of which we have record was about 
37, and I believe we have records of about 35 this year. 

Mr. Levy. Do we have any sea otter? 

Dr. Evermann. This sea otter is our sea otter. It is the American 
species. 

Mr. Levy. Do we restrict the killing of sea otter in any way ? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir; this treaty restricts it, and before this 
treaty was enacted the law of April 21, 1910, authorized the Secre- 



48 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND . SEA OTTER. 

tary of Commerce and Labor to promulgate regulations for the pro- 
tection of the sea otter and other fur-bearing animals in Alaska. 

Mr. Levy. Does this bill apply to them, also? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Levy. The sea otter is worth a great deal of money? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Levy. About what is the pelt of a sea otter worth ? 

Dr. Evbemann. I suppose all the way from $200 to $1,000. 

Mr. Sharp. From what place do these trained seals come? 

Dr. Evermann. They are harbor seals and hair seals, which come 
from various points, from the coast of Maine, principally. The only 
fur seals in the world in captivitjr, or that have ever been kept in 
captivity, are the two down at the Bureau of Fisheries, and eight 
which came down from the islands last fall. Ten were brought 
down, but two of them have died, and the other eight, I believe, are 
still living. The two at the Bureau of Fisheries were brought down 
by the revenue cutter Bear, two years ago, and they are doing splen- 
didly: and a rather astonishing statement can be made regarding 
those two fur seals : They are the only fur seals that have ever lived 
of which you can say, absolutely, " These are 2-year-old seals." 

Mr. Cooper. Have they propagated ? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir; the male is not old enough. Any state- 
ment regarding the age of any seal on the islands is simply a matter 
of opinion. No one knows and no one ever has known the age of any 
seal on the seal islands, barring, of course, the pups of the year that 
have not yet left. When a pup is born on the islands, so long as 
it stays there you can know its age, but when it leaves in the fall and 
comes back again the next season you do not know absolutely, 
whether it is the pup born in the preceding summer or one born two 
or three summers preceding. We can have an opinion, but we do not 
know. So these two are the only 2-year-old seals of which we can 
say absolutely that they are 2-year-old seals. 

Mr. Kendall. Do you expect them to propagate ? 

Dr. Evermann. We do not know what to expect. We are simply 
experimenting to find out. It has never been tried before, and 
there is no way of finding out except by waiting and seeing what the 
result will be. 

Mr. Levy. How many see otter did we catch last year ? 

Dr. Evermann. We did not catch any. The regulations of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor prohibit the killing of sea otter 
within territorial waters. Those that were killed were killed out- 
side of the 3-mile limit. I should modify my first statement that 
we did not kill any. That is not quite true. I should say none was 
killed legally within territorial waters, but in the neighborhood of 
35 were killed outside of territorial waters. 

Mr. Levy. The sea otter, so far as the pelt is concerned, is one of 
the most valuable furs, you may say, in existence ? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. As I was going to say, this treaty pro- 
vides for the protection of the sea otter outside of territorial waters. 

The Chairman. The natives catch a sea otter now and then along 
the coast of Alaska, because there is no law prohibiting that ? 

Dr. Evermann. That is true. 

The Chairman. Doctor, have you studied the migration of the 
seals from the Pribilof Islands? 



PROTECTION" OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 49 

Dr. Evermann. I spent six months in 1892 on the fisheries steamer 
Albatross studying that very, question. 

The Chairman. Will you be good enough to tell us about that? 

Dr. Evermann. The migration route has been pretty well worked 
out. When the seals leave the islands in November they pass through 
the passes of the Aleutian Islands and down in the Pacific, and then 
in the middle of the winter swing toward the California coast, and 
then turn back northward, and just about this time- they will be 
passing off Cape Flattery and on north back to Bering Sea, following- 
up the Alaska coast and reaching the islands again next spring. A 
chart has been published showing the approximate position of the 
herd in each month in the year. 

Mr, Kendall. Doctor, what is your theory of the purpose of that 
excursion which they make annually? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not know that I have a theory that is worth 
anything, but we suppose they leave the islands for feeding purposes. 
They do not remain there during the winter. Then there is the 
further reason that the islands are rather undesirable climatically 
during the winter. 

Mr. Kendall. But they take this same direction each year? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. Of course, the primary cause of the migra- 
tion of any animal is a large question. Every species of bird has a 
rather definite migration route. 

Mr. Kendall. They are governed entirely by climatic conditions, 
are they not? 

Dr. Evermann. It is still a question as to what causes birds to 
migrate. Why do they go South in the fall ? 

The Chairman. Food and weather have a great deal to do with it. 

Dr. Evermann. Food has something to do with it and climate has 
something to do with it. 

Mr. Kendall. Of course, in the southern latitudes there is food for 
them in our winter period, and that is a matter of climate so far as 
the birds are concerned. 

Dr. Evermann. Of course, there are a good many birds which mi- 
grate, but which are not necessarily compelled to do so by the absence 
of food. That is a question the ornithologists discuss from time to 
time, and they are not all agreed. They are pretty well agreed upon 
this one thing, however, that primarily the original cause of migra- 
tion was the invasion of unusual cold during the glacial period, 
driving them from their permanent home to the South, and the spring 
migration back northward is an effort to return to the original home. 

The Chairman. Doctor, have you ever been to the Commander 
Islands ? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In your opinion, how many fur seals are in the 
herd there? 

Dr. Evermann. I believe that the Russian representatives at the 
fur-seal conferences in Washington last summer stated that they 
had not to exceed 18,000 in 1910. 

The Chairman. In your opinion, how many are in the Japanese 
herd on Robben Island? 

Dr. Evermann. I understand that the Japanese at the fur-seal 
conference in Washington put the number for Robben Island at 
6,557 in 1910, and a few on the Kurils. 

22875—12 4 



50 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

The Chairman. And these three herds practically constitute all 
the fur seals of the world? 

Dr. Evermann. They are all the fur seals of the Northern Hemi- 
sphere. There are seals in the Southern Hemisphere of a different 
genus, not as valuable. These three herds represent three different 
species, of which our sioecies (the Alaskan fur seal) is the most 
valuable. 

Mr. Cooper. Has Great Britain any herd? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir. 

Mr. Cooper. Then why is Great Britain made a party to this con- 
vention ? 

The Chairman. On account of Canada. 

Mr. Kendall. And on account of the pelagic sealing which she 
agrees to surrender? 

The Chairman. That is correct. 

Mr. Cooper. The speaker who preceded Dr. Evermann stated 
that he thought it would be a difficult matter to get one of the 
nations to surrender that right. 

Mr. Kendall. But in this case we are paying her for it. 

Mr. Foster. Doctor, when they are on this migration, do the seals 
go upon the shore much, if any? 

Dr. Evermann. Never. So far as known, they never haul out 
on land anywhere except on the islands of St. George and St. Paul. 

Mr. Garner. Doctor, in what way do these other countries get a 
15 per cent interest in our herd? 

Dr. Evermann. According to the terms of the treaty we agreed 
to give Great Britain 15 per cent of the skins which are taken 
annually on the islands and to give Japan also 15 per cent. That 
is in return for their giving up their right to kill seals in the open 
sea. 

Mr. Garner. Doctor, you are superintendent of seal fisheries in 
the Bureau of Fisheries. What number of employees do you have 
there connected with your department in the Bureau of Fisheries? 

Dr. Evermann. The division of which I have charge has charge 
of all of the fisheries of Alaska, not only the fur seals, but the sal- 
mon and all other fisheries and fur-bearing animals. The division 
was established by Congress last winter as a separate division, and 
it includes the seal agents, of whom there are four, and the other em- 
ployees connected with the seal service, of whom there are six; and 
the salmon agents, of whom there are four; and the fur-bearing 
animal wardens, of whom there are five; each of whom receives the 
munificent salary of $600 a year. 

The Chairman. And I want to say these men are doing good work 
and they ought to get more pay for what they are doing. 

Dr. Evermann. I am very glad to hear you say that, Mr. Chair- 
man. I would like to say for the fur-bearing animal wardens of 
Alaska that they are all men of ability. I think every one of them 
is a university graduate except one. They are all men who have 
nerve, who have had experience in the woods, and who are ambi- 
tious to become authorities on the question of fur-bearing animals, 
and that is the reason why they were willing to go to Alaska. They 
are there this winter camping in the forest with the trappers, watch- 
ing the operations of the hunters and trappers and studying the 
habits of the animals; not for the $600 which they are getting, but 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 51 

for the opportunity of becoming authorities upon these questions 
in which they have this special interest. Men could not be gotten 
to go up there for the small salary paid. 

Mr. Harrison. How far is St. George Island from St. Paul 
Island? 

Dr. Evermann. About 36 or 40 miles. 

Mr. Harrison. Which is the larger of the two islands ? 
■ Dr. Evermann. St. Paul. 

Mr. Kendall. What is the area of St. Paul ? 

Dr. Evermann. Well, Mr. Lembkey can tell you that much more 
accurately than I can. 

Mr. Lembkey. About 50 square miles. 

Dr. Evermann. It is about 13 miles long and half as wide, but a 
part of it is very narrow. 

The Chairman. Doctor, if there is any other data you desire to 
incorporate in your remarks, the committee would be very glad to 
have you do so. 

Dr. Evermann. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. ELLSWORTH P. BERTHOLF, COMMANDANT, 

REVENUE-CUTTER SERVICE, TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 

The Chairman. Captain, will you be good enough to give the 
reporter your full name and your official connection with the Gov- 
ernment ? 

Capt. Bertholf. Capt. Ellsworth P. Bertholf, captain comman- 
dant of the Revenue-Cutter Service. 

There is nothing particular I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, but 
possibly I might know something, if any one desires to ask me any 
questions. Of course, the interest of the Revenue-Cutter Service in 
this sealing matter is that we do most of the work ; in fact, we do all 
the work at sea. The patrol has been in the years past maintained 
by the Revenue-Cutter Service and that is where we come in, as bear- 
ing on this question. 

Mr. Sharp. Are Great Britain and Japan doing their part of this 
service ? «. 

Capt. Bertholf. Japan never had any part to perform. 

Mr. Sharp. But under this treaty they will come in for a part of it? 

Capt. Bertholf. They are supposed to do so. If they do only as 
well as Great Britain has in the past under the Bering Sea Tribunal, 
they will not do much. 

The Chairman. How many revenue cutters has the Government 
of the United States in the North Pacific ? 

Capt. Bertholf. On the Bering-Sea patrol? 

The Chairman. Yes; and in the North Pacific. 

Capt. Bertholf. It has 12 altogether, but that is counting vessels 
of all classes — there are only 6 of the larger cruising vessels. Of 
those we sent to the North Pacific and Bering Sea last year, only 3 
were on the seal patrol. We did not have any more vessels to send 
on this duty. The Manning, Tahoma, and Rush were on seal patrol. 
The Bear was detailed for the Arctic cruise, the Thetis for the De- 
partment of Justice cruise along the coast of Alaska, and the Mc- 
Cvlloch remained in southern Californian waters. 

Mr. Levy. Are there any new ones there ? 



52 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Capt. Bertholf. Not yet. 

Mr. Levy. The ones you have at present are out of date, are thev 
not? 

Capt. Bertholf. We think so — that is, all except one. There is a 
new one building now — the Unalga. She will be finished in June. 
She will be out on the west coast next fall. We have one that is 
comparatively new, the Tahoma. She went out two years ago. She 
is a new vessel yet. While the McCulloch and the Manning are 14 
years old, they are still fairly good vessels. The Bear is 39 years and 
the Thetis 30 years old. Both are wooden vessels in fair condition, 
but used for special cruising north. We need at least three vessels 
for the Bering Sea patrol alone, and four would be better. If the 
Revenue-Cutter Service has to patrol the entire North Pacific north 
of the parallel of 30° and west to the 180th meridian, it would need 
a great many revenue cutters. 
Mr. Cooper. What size are those ships? 
Capt. Bertholf. Anywhere from 550 to 1,280 tons. 
Mr. Cooper. And how long? 

Capt. Bertholf. Two hundred feet, usually. From 170 feet to 
219 feet. Our largest vessel on the west coast is 219 feet. 

Mr. Sharp. Captain, do you encounter many attempts to violate 
the treaty? 

Capt. Bertholf. You are speaking of this treaty ? _ 
Mr. Sharp. Yes. 

Capt. Bertholf. Of course, this treaty is not in effect yet. 
Mr. Sharp. I mean attempts to illegally take the seals. 
Capt. Bertholf. Oh, yes; we encounter that. That is what we 
are up there for, 

Mr. Sharp. But I asked you if you encountered many attempts 
to do that. What I want to know is how your vigilance is taxed. 

Capt. Bertholf. Well, under the agreement between England 
and America, the United States did not permit any vessels to seal 
at all. In fact, it has been against the law for any United States 
citizen to fit out a vessel for sealing, and consequently none have 
fitted out for many years that we know of. But there was no such 
law passed by England, and she allowed Canada to fit out her vessels 
and to seal at such times as the law did not prevent. For instance, 
they could follow up the herd until the 1st of May. After the 1st of 
May they had to keep out of the North Pacific, north of latitude 35 
and out of the Bering Sea. After the 1st of August they could then 
go into the Bering Sea and seal to within a zone of 60 miles around 
the Pribilof Islands. It was a part of our business to see they did not 
get inside of that 60 miles, and, of course, that 60-mile zone is a 
rather long stretch. 

Mr. Sharp. Do you have many seizures ? 
Capt. Bertholf. Of Englishmen ? 
Mr. Sharp. Yes. 

Capt. Bertholf. Not of late. We used to have quite a number. 
We have not seized any Englishmen of late because they have only 
had three or four vessels each year engaged in sealing. 
Mr. Sharp. Or anyone else besides Englishmen ? 
Capt. Bertholf. Yes ; the Japanese have given us the most trouble 
during the past four or five years. Two Japanese sealers were seized 
by revenue cutters in 1907, two in 1908, and two in 1909. It was not 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 53 

ao-ainst the law for the Japanese to seal outside territorial waters. 
Any vessels except English and American could seal in the open 
seas, and outside of the 3-mile limit we have no jurisdiction over 
the vessels of other nations. Up to the present time the laws ot the 
United States prevented the United States citizens from sealing 
anywhere. The convention between England and America prevented 
the Englishmen from sealing to within 60 miles of the islands, but 
the Japanese or anvone else could seal within 3 miles of the islands. 

Mr. Sharp. So this treaty and this law will be a great step in 
advance, you think ? . ' _ . . • 

Capt, Bertholf. Decidedly so, for four nations have joined the 
convention instead of two, as formerly. _ 

The Chairman. In your opinion, Captain, when this law becomes 
effective, will there be to any extent pelagic sealing on the Pacific? 

Capt. Bertholf. While it is only a guess, I should say there will 
still be pelagic sealing. There is nothing to prevent citizens of any 
country notTa party to this treaty from fitting out any vessels they 
please. But a vessel must have food and water in order to seal. Of 
course, under this treaty the whole of our coast is forbidden to any 
vessel for sealing purposes, and while a Mexican vessel, for instance, 
might fit out and go sealing, she could not go into any of our ports 
for water, which she must have. But there are innumerable harbors 
and bays on the Alaskan coast that are not regular ports, and where 
there are no people to prevent such vessels from obtaining water 
supply. The Alaskan coast line is immense, and we would have to 
have a great many vessels along this Alaskan coast to keep all for- 
eign vessels from entering out-of-the-way places and getting water. 
They can carry all the provisions they need. Another thing, if a 
Mexican vessel fitted out, or some American citizens fitted out a 
vessel not under the American flag — and that is not at all unlikely 
since some of these Japanese vessels in the last four or five years 
were manned by Canadians, ex- Americans, and Scandinavians — and 
they, by the way, were the ones that got the greatest number of 
seals — they could fit out the vessel, put it under a foreign flag, and 
we could not touch that vessel unless it was within the 3-mile limit. 

The Chairman. Have you read section 1 and section 10 of this act? 

Capt. Bertholf. Yes, sir ; possibly I have not digested them. 

The Chairman. I think you will find, Captain, that under those 
two sections the vessel can be seized. 

Capt, Bertholf. Yes, sir; we can seize any vessel beyond the 
3-mile limit, but we would probably have to give it up. We have no 
jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas. 

The Chairman. That would have to be" determined by one of our 
federal courts. 

Capt. Bertholf. Is it the meaning of this law that it is supposed 
to stop all pelagic sealing? 

The Chairman. That is the object of the law and the purpose of 
the convention. 

Mr. Garner. I hardly anticipate, if you should seize a German 
vessel over there flying the German flag,* that the jurisdiction of the 
t ederal court would have much to do with the arrangement here in 
the State Department, and vou would have to turn it loose. You 



54 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND. SEA OTTER. 

are not going to have any law passed by Congress that would take 
that power away from Germany. 

Capt. Bertholf. I should like to say this, Mi'. Chairman, as a 
suggestion: In section 7 there is no mention of sea otters. It pro- 
vides for presumptive evidence, which will convict in the case of seals 
but not in the case of sea otters, and without the words " sea otters " 
in the section there is no penalty for taking sea otters unless you 
prove they actually kill them. That has been the difficulty here- 
tofore. 

Mr. Levy. Do you not think that if we protected the sea otters 
they would increase ? 

Capt. Bertholf. I would suppose so. The difficulty we have had 
in the past with our work in Alaska is this : In seizing Japanese 
vessels, for instance, we have had to prove they killed the seals inside 
of the 3-mile limit, and that is difficult to do. 

Mr. Garner. In other words, Captain, a vessel could go seeking 
sea otter, and unless you actually caught them in the act of taking 
the seal you would not be able to seize them? 

Capt. Bertholf. Precisely so. Here is an instance in point. Up 
to the present time it has been against the Canadian laws, as well 
as our own, for a Canadian vessel to seal north of 35° of latitude 
until the 1st of August. Three years ago I was in command of a 
revenue cutter, and we boarded two or three Canadian sealers inside 
the restricted zone during the forbidden time. They were fitted 
for sealing. We could not seize them because they had a sealing 
license. They said they were catching sea otters. They had no 
seals on board, but they could easily catch the seals. The only 
difference between the two outfits is the salt. They salt the seal- 
skins and dry the sea-otter skins. If there is no penalty for vessels 
engaged in sea-otter hunting they could fit out for sea otters, it seems 
to me, and kill fur seals if no one happened to be around. 

Mr. Foster. Captain, if you do not mind, I would like to ask the 
representative of the Department of Commerce and Labor what he 
has to say on that point. 

Mr. Earl. I think Capt. Bertholf's suggestion is a good one. Of 
course, under the law the hunting and pursuing of sea otters is pro- 
hibited under a penalty, but this particular section he refers to 
makes the presence of hunting implements and skins on board pre- 
sumptive evidence of being engaged in that occupation. I think 
the fact of the matter is that the reason why sea otters and sea-otter 
skins were not mentioned in that section was because it was merely 
an oversight. I think that mention should be made of sea-otter 
skins. 

The Chairman. Capt. Bertholf, is there anything else you desire 
to say? 

Capt. Bertholf. No, sir. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to have you incorporate in your 
remarks anything further you desire to submit. 

Capt. Bertholf. I thank you, sir, and submit the following state- 
ment as to the operations of the Eevenue-Cutter Service in this con- 
nection : 

Since pelagic sealing -was first practiced revenue cutters have been employed 
every season in the patrol of the Bering Sea. Hundreds of thousands of miles 
have been covered in the ceaseless work of cruising around the Pribilof Is- 
lands, thousands of vessels boarded and many seized in the enforcement of 



PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 55 

the various regulations which from time to time have been promulgated for the 
protection of seal life in the waters of the Bering Sea and the North Pacific 
Ocean. At various times the fleet employed has consisted of from three to six 
vessels, according to the activities of the poachers and the necessities of the 
service to be rendered. It can be said without fear of contradic:ion that were 
it not for, the vigilance of the revenue cutters during the years since the patrol 
was inaugurated there would to-day be practically no seal herd on the Pribilofs 
with which to stare this proposed rehabilitation. Besides patrolling the seas to 
prevent pelagic sealing, the presence of the cutters has prevented actual raids 
on the rookeries. As the herd has grown smaller the price of the pelts has 
naturally increased, and this has emboldened the poachers which infest the 
Bering Sea during the sealing season, with the result that during the last few 
years the greatest vigilance has been necessary to'prevent dashes at the shore 
breeding grounds. The crews of these sealing schooners are, as a rule, reckless 
and daring men, and in two or three hours' time could kill and get away with as 
many seals from x>ne of the rookeries as they would ordinarily catch at sea 
during an entire season. The incentive, therefore, to make a raid, even at the 
risk of losing their lives, has been very great. Under the conditions which 
will prevail during the operation of the treaty sealskins will be of greater 
value than ever, so that the protection of the islands will have to be even more 
rigid than heretofore to prevent marauders from making raids on the rookeries. 

This patrolling of the waters surrounding the Pribilofs is one of the most 
severe duties which befalls any branch of the public service. The weather con- 
ditions are uniformly bad, and a dense pall of fog surrounds the islands for 
about half the time during the months of July and August. There are no 
lights nor fog signals in these waters, and the only warnings of the near ap- 
proach to the land are the roar of the breakers and the bellowing of the seals 
on the rookeries. As fog conditions are naturally the best for making raids, 
the worry and anxiety of the officers in charge of the cutters can well be 
imagined. 

There are no harbors in which to seek shelter, so that from 15 to 20 daysat 
a time the cutters must continually cruise about, the monotony being varied 
only by the occasional visits to the headquarters at Unalaska, 225 miles away, 
for coal, water, and other supplies. To the credit of the service it can be stated 
that notwithstanding the constant dangers of these surroundings, there has 
been but one vessel lost in the 40 and more years in which revenue cutters 
have cruised Alaskan waters. This occurred when the revenue cutter Perry 
struck a reef off St. Paul Island during a dense fog in July, 1910. .' The loss 
of this vessel has proven a serious drawback in the patrol of the Bering Sea,, 
as there is no available vessel to take her place. Attention, however, is called 
to the fact that a bill is now pending before Congress to replace the Perry 
with a new vessel, better fitted for this duty. The enforcement of the treaty 
conditions on the part of the United States will require the service of every 
available revenue cutter on the Pacific coast from the time that the seals start 
northward in the spring until they return in the fall, as it must not be sup- 
posed, with such valuable prizes at stake, that the existence of this treaty will 
prevent lawless men from making the attempt to capture seals both on land 
and at sea. The value of any law depends on the rigidity with which it is 
enforced, and I can only say that with its record of the past as a guide for 
the future the Revenue-Cutter Service will be able to cope with the situation, 
and thus, so far as the United States Government is concerned, at least the 
intent of the treaty will be carried out to the letter. 

STATEMENT OF PEQF. HENEY W. ELLIOTT, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. 

The Chairman. Professor, will you give the reporter your full 
name and official capacity with the Government? 

Mr. Elliott. Henry W. Elliott ; citizen ; residence, 17 Grace Ave- 
nue, Lakewood, near Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. Chairman, I came here to make a statement with regard to 
the merits and demerits of a bill which would properly safeguard 
the terms of this treaty. I have listened to a great deal of biological 
data, which I intended to take up after I addressed the committee on 
the merits of this bill. 



56 PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Kendall. Mr. Chairman, as this is likely to be quite an ex- 
tended hearing, I would suggest that we adjourn until to-morrow 
morning. 

Mr. Elliott. I would like to take up at this moment and answer 
briefly the biological statements which have just been made by 
Dr. Evermann. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Elliott. Dr. Evermann has told you that from his stand- 
point the natural laws which govern this wild life up there are a 
mistake, and he can improve upon them. I belong to a school of 
naturalists who have studied a great deal in the. open and have come 
to recognize the fact that God Almighty knows a great deal more 
about the care and conservation of any wild life than any human 
being has as yet ascertained. Dr. Evermann assumes that he has 
control of this life up there and that he is selecting the breeders. 
He has no more control over that life up there than he has of the 
listing of these winds. He has control over his domesticated roosters 
and he has control over his domesticated bull calves from the time 
they are born until he puts them to the stud. He has them fed, 
ordered, and selected and confined by himself. Has he that con- 
trol over these wild bull-seal pups on the seal islands ? No, sir ; not 
in the slightest. Then who is to select the best sires for this herd? 
If we can not select the best every year and rear them, what do we 
do if we interfere with that law of natural selection which has made 
this species the most dominant life in the whole marine list of highly 
organized animals? Who has done that? God Almighty. Who 
has interfered with that selection and cut it down and said : " I know 
more than the Creator " ? These naturalists, headed by Dr. Jordan. 
What is the result ? They do this by killing the very finest and the 
choicest every year. They save nothing but the runts and the weak- 
lings, that get away with their permission and which they will not 
kill because they are not worth it. They say they " save " them, but 
they do not save them. They say they " save " two or three or four 
hundred 2-year-olds, but they do not do that. 

Mr. Kendall. Professor, is that literally true, that the only male 
seals preserved annually are those which are worthless? 

Mr. Elliott. I am going to show how there can not be any others 
saved. They do not know what they have saved. They say they have 
" saved " seals, but do they know what they have saved ? These seals 
come up and get out in the spring before they kill for the annual 
catch. They say they mark by clipping the hair on the tops of their 
heads two or three or four hundred young male seals as " reserved " or 
" saved." Those seals are released, and during that subsequent killing 
in June and July they are not killed if they are driven up 'again. 
They go out to sea, when first released, beyond the ken of these men, 
who never know from that hour to this hour what has become of them. 

They can not trace them back. Why ? Because when they haul out 
again in the fall that clipped mark of reservation has disappeared. 
If they do haul out, they have got to run the gantlet during the 
summer of pelagic hunters and of their natural enemies at sea, and 
when they come back in the fall, after they have run that gantlet, 
these men do not know anything about it. They can not tell whether 
a seal so " saved " has been killed by a pelagic hunter or caught by 
a killer whale. Thev do not know. But if the seal does live to that 



PROTECTION OP FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 57 

period and does get back in October, that mark has disappeared from 
its head. Why? Because it has shed the hair and a new coat has 
come on, uniform all over the body. Then what do they do ? They 
want to kill some seals for natives' food. There are some nice large 
fellows hauled out in October and November ; their skins are valuable, 
and they get them. So next year when they kill again they go 
through this idle motion of " saving " two or three or four hundred, 
but have they saved these seals they let go ? Do they know they have 
saved them ? 

Do they recognize them when they come back ? No. Where is the 
parallel between your calves, and your lambs, and your rams? You 
save them from birth up, and keep them in your stalls and in your 
fields, always in your view. Where is the parallel? Now, what is 
the result? The killing off of these male seals, as Evermann advises, 
prevents that struggle for existence between them when they mature, 
which eliminates the weaklings, and the runts, and the cowards; be- 
cause, even if they are big, they are sometimes cowardly ; even if they 
are strong, they may not have the nerve of a little fellow, and then 
what happens? By that natural selection only the very finest of them 
get on to the breeding ground, and they propagate a race which is 
virile and which comes back to us with compound interest, if we let 
them alone ; and only by letting them alone, gentlemen, will they ever 
come back to us, unless somebody whose head is greater than any 
man's whom I have ever seen, can devise an improvement on the 
natural law which the Creator has established for the reproduction 
of any wild life. I have lived among naturalists all my life. These 
men do not represent all the naturalists. Of course, we disagree. 
Lawyers disagree, doctors disagree, but that is natural. But go into 
any tribunal of naturalists and endeavor to find a man who will in- 
dorse Dr. Evermann's argument here, that this wild life can be treated, 
and he is treating it, as he did his boars, and his rams, and his calves. 

Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any need of 
reflecting on Dr. Evermann. 

Mr. Cooper. I do not think he is reflecting on Dr. Evermann. 

Mr. Elliott. I am not. I am only presenting an argument in op- 
position to his. 

Mr. Cooper. I do not think it is the slightest reflection on anybody. 

Mr. Elliott. It is not meant as a reflection. He has his opinion 
and his view, I have mine. I am giving my reasons for it. And I 
have prepared a full history of the killing of seals on these islands 
when there was no pelagic sealing, which I will read to-morrow. A 
full history of the killing on these islands from start to finish which 
ruined that herd, when there was no pelagic sealing, and when they 
were killing just as these gentlemen are killing to-day on the islands — 
and I am going to la}^ that proof before you as I did before John 
Hay seven years ago, and leave it with you. This gentleman, Mr. 
Lembkey, has said I am responsible for statements that he is killing 
small seals up there, which statements are not true. He pointed to 
me when he made that statement. I will ask him to wait until this 
committee and another committee of this House makes its report of 
finding of facts, and then, perhaps, there will be another statement 
coming from him. 

(The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of execu- 
tive business, after which it adjourned.) 



58 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, January 4, 1912. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. William Sulzer 
(chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF PKOF. HENKY W. ELLIOTT, OF CLEVELAND, 

OHIO — Kesumed. 

The Chairman. Prof. Elliott, you may proceed. 

Mr. Elliott. The accident of my life put me on the seal islands of 
Alaska 40 years ago next April, and that accident made me the first 
trained observer and artist that ever landed there. The biological 
notes, the life drawings, field surveys, and studies in color of this 
anomalous and wonderful marine life made by me then, constitute 
the only record indisputable and complete which it is in the power 
of any man, or any government, to present to you at this hour. 
Those studies exhibit truthfully the immense numbers and fine 
form of that herd, when at its best ; and, when at its maximum num- 
ber, and in a state of nature, as ordered by those natural laws which 
govern its existence, and regulate its increase, to that limit. 

This record which I made then, declared that 4,700,000 fur seals 
were in existence on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1874. 

Mr. Kendall. Is that number confined to the American herd? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. There have been no Russian seals there 
since 1867. 

Mr. Kendall. But, as I understand it, there are three distinct 
herds there now. 

Mr. Elliott. No ; not of our seals. 

Mr. Kendall. I am speaking of the Russian and Japanese herds. 

Mr. Elliott. They are in existence at this time, of course. 

Mr. Kendall. But they are not included in your figures ? 

Mr. Elliott. Certainly not. I knew no more of them then than 
you do now. 

Mr. Goodwin. How do you differentiate between our herd and the 
herds of other nations? 

Mr. Elliott. Our herd confines its breeding solely on our islands, 
known as the Pribilof Islands. The Russian herd confines its 
breeding solely to the Commander Islands, right off the coast of 
Kamchatka, 700 miles west of our islands. They never, so far as 
we know, interbreed or commingle. 

Mr. Difenderfer. And they never migrate ? 

Mr. Elliott. They all migrate. 

Mr. Difenderfer. I mean, what distance ? 

Mr. Elliott. They migrate over a watery circuit of 5,000 miles 
every year. 

Mr. Goodwin. I was about to ask the extent of their migration, 
but that was covered by the question of Mr. Difenderfer. When they 
migrate from these islands they always at stated periods return to 
their haunts, do they not? 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 59 

Mr. Elliott. They return to the same place whence they left the 
previous season ; and, so far as we know, they never commingle. The 
Japanese herd has its route; the Russian herd has its route, entirely 
different to theirs ; and our herd has its route, without any admixture 
from these other herds. 

Mr. Kendall. Can our seals, in species, be distinguished from the 
Russian seals ? 

Mr. Elliott. No, sir. 

Mr. Kendall. They are all of one family ? 

Mr. Elliott. They are one species. I have. spread hundreds of 
skins before different men, and they could never separate the Com- 
mander skins from the Pribilof or Alaskan skins. It is all popycock 
about there being three species. They are simply three varieties. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Elliott, what is the policy or practice of the Rus- 
sian Government and Japanese Government with reference to slaugh- 
tering any of their males ? 

Mr. Elliott. I am going to touch upon that. That is one of the 
main points I am to notice here. 

This record which I made then declared that 4,700,000 fur seals 
were in existence on the rookeries and the hauling grounds of the 
Pribilof Islands during the season of 1874 ; and my conclusions of fact 
were first reported November 20, 1874, to the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, and that was published by the Secretary of the Treasury that 
same year in a document of the Treasury Department. To-day the 
last report from those islands shows that it is extremely doubtful 
whether more than 100.000 seals have really survived up to the 1st 
of last August. 

What has caused this wreck and ruin of that fine herd, in the pres- 
ervation and protection of which the whole civilized world is con- 
cerned? You know. Why has this destruction not been prevented 
by the several governments interested in its solution ? Simply because 
certain powerful private interests have been greedily engaged in its 
profitable slaughter, for them, and busy in steering that officialism 
which should protect it. 

Mr. Kendall. Are you connected with the Government service now, 
Professor ? 

Mr. Elliott. No, sir ; and this is of my own volition. 

I will not, unless requested by this committee, further specify those 
interests and their work as they wrought this destruction to the herd 
on land and in the sea. I will simply say that I have never been, and 
am not now, linked with them or with that officialism which they have 
ordered, for now, to me, it is only water that has passed over the 
sluice; but I am proud and happy to be able to stand before you 
to-day and tell you that fur-seal plan of " mutual concession and 
joint control," which John Hay; Sir Mortimer Durand, the British 
ambassador; and the senatorial committee, Gov. Dillingham, chair- 
man, approved, after I had framed it, March 7-17, 1905, at last is 
ratified, July 24, 1911, and is now before you for your final action, 
which will safeguard its terms, and make them serve the purpose 
for which John Hay and his associates devised them. 



60 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

I wish to submit Exhibits A, B, C, and D in further proof of that 
statement : 

Exhibit A. 

The Elliott draft of mutual concession and joint control for fur-seal treaty 
settlement, as first submitted February 28, 1905, and approved by John Hay 
March 7, 1905, and then signed up by the senatorial committee March 17, 1905. 

[This is the origin and completion of the fur-seal treaty as ratified July 24 last by the 

United States Senate.] 

[Memorandum No. 1.] 

1R0M THE AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW. — AS TO AN ANGLO-AMERICAN JOINT CONTROL 
OF THE KILLING OF THE PRIBILOF FUR-SEAL HERD, WITH SPECIAL REGARD FOR ITS 
RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION. 

I. Under existing law and regulations, the Pribilof fur-seal herd will be so 
diminished by 1908 that its care and maintenance thereafter will constitute an 
annual charge and burden upon the Public Treasury, and also include the sup- 
port of some 300 natives of the said Pribilof Islands. 

II. Without the cooperation of Canada this fur-seal herd can not be restored 
to its natural full form and number. Unless it is so restored it is of no value to 
us. The seal islands of Alaska are barren of all agriculture, and of mineral 
lauds, with no fish or fisheries, and are far out of the path of commerce. 

III. We can not reasonably expect the Canadian Government to unite with us 
unless we make certain concessions. These concessions must be of a character 
which the Canadian Government can accept as a positive gain to it over existing 
conditions, and so publish that fact to its own people. 

IV. We can not buy the rights of British subjects vested in pelagic sealing, 
but we can share our rights with their rights in a joint control of the killing 
of this fur-seal life on the land and in the sea. 

V. We can have this joint control without a waiver of our sovereignty on the 
Pribilof Islands. We can arrange it as specified in Articles II and III of the 
following memorandum (No. 2). 



[Memorandum No. 2.] 

FROM THE BRITISH POINT OF VIEW. — AS TO AN ANGLO-AMERICAN JOINT CONTROL OF 
THE KILLING OF THE PRIBILOF FUR-SEAL HERD, WITH SPECIAL REGARD FOR ITS 
RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION. 

I. Under existing rules and regulations the Pribilof fur-seal herd will be so 
diminished in numbers that the pelagic hunting of that herd in 1906 will cease 
to be profitable for the fleet now engaged in its prosecution, and its importance 
as an industry will cease. Four or five vessels will continue to hang on the 
flanks of the remnant of the herd annually and secure only a small annual catch 
of a few thousand seals into the indefinite future. 

II. If the Canadian Government will unite with that of the United States in 
a joint control of the killing of this Pribilof fur-seal herd on the land and in 
the sea, then the small nucleus of it now existing can be restored to its natural 
fine form and number in 10 or 12 years from date, if all killing on the islands 
and in the sea is suspended by the joint agreement to that end by the two Gov- 
ernments aforesaid. Then, when the killing of the surplus male life is resumed, 
as it can be in 10 or 12 years, it should be done entirely on the islands, and only 
by agents of the Government of the United States. A Canadian inspector should. 
be resident on the islands, and his certificate as to the work done and of the 
number of skins taken shall go with those of the American agents from the 
islands annually and be of equal official warrant and record value. The skins 
shall be sold at public auction, in the best market of the world, and in strict 
accordance with the established usage of the fur trade. 

III. The Canadian Government should bear, say, 25 per cent of the annual 
cost of maintenance of the care and conservation of the herd, including support 



PROTECTION" OP PUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 61 

of the natives, etc., and it should receive, say, 25 per cent of the net proceeds 
annually from the sale of the skins taken on the islands. 

This cost of maintenance will not exceed $50,000 annually; the entire cost of 
the transshipment of the skins to Loudon from the islands will not exceed $.2.50 
per skin. 

When the herd is restored, between 75.000 and 80,000 young male seals can 
be annually taken without any injury to its full natural birth rate on the 
islands ; these skins will be worth at the lowest figures $1,500,000, and at the 
figures of prosperous trade $2,500,000 to $3,000,000, as they are to-day. 

Therefore the Canadian treasury would receive at least $300,000 annually iu 
seasons of dull trade and some $800,000 in the seasons of prosperity. 

IV. Unless the Canadian Government unites in this manner with the United 
Stales Government it will never receive anything from this industry; it never 
has derived a single cent from it for its public treasury up to date. 

Note. — This memorandum was printed and appended, as above, to the treaty as sent 
in to the Senate February 8, 1911, by the Secretary of State and ratified by the Senate 
February 15, 1911, these terms of mutual concession and joint control being kept secret 
until Japan and Russia came into agreement with Canada and the United States on the 
terms as above stated. 



The original Elliott draft of the fur-seal treaty terms of mutual concession and 
joint control, dated February 28, 1905. 

[Approved by John Hay March 7, 1905. Approved by Sir Mortimer Durand March 7, 1905. 
Approved by senatorial committee March 17, 1905. and ratified by Canada February 8, 
1905-July 7, 1905, and by United States Senate July 24, 1905.] 

I. 

United States Senate. 
Washington, L\. C, March 11, 1905 
Hon. V. H. Metcalf, 

Secretary Department Commerce and Labor. 
Deap. Sir : After a careful survey and study of the condition of affairs on the 
seal islands of Alaska during the past two years we have come to the conclu- 
sion that any steps which we may take to restore the Pribilof fur-seal herd 
so as to be of any economic value to our Government will fail unless we have 
the cooperation of the Canadian Government. 

With that cooperation we can succeed, to the great mutual advantage of both 
Governments. To secure this cooperation it is evident to us now that we must 
make certain concessions to the Canadian Government in return for certain 
concessions to be made on its part to us. 

We respectfully submit a memorandum which embodies our ideas with regard 
to these neutral concessions which should be made in the premises, and which 
we believe will receive favorable attention at Ottawa if placed in the hands of 
the British ambassador by the President, with a full descriptive text illustrating 
the great natural power of recuperation possessed by the fur-seal herd if prop- 
erly managed by man. 

Very respectfully, yours, W. P. Dillingham. 

Kntjte Nelson. 
Henry E. Burn ham. 



Washington, D. C, March 17, 1905. 
Memoranda as to certain concessions which the Government of the United 
States and that of Canada might mutually make, to their great mutual advan- 
tage, with regard to a settlement of the pending fur-seal negotiations, and in- 
closed in letter to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, dated March 17, 1905. 
Submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor by the special committee 
of the United States Senate charged with the duty of investigating into the 
needs of .the public interests of Alaska, pursuant to Senate resolution No. 16, 
adopted March 19, 1903. 



62 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Exhibit B. 

The President informed of the fact that the Hay-Elliott plan of mutual conces- 
sion and joint control can be speedily ratified. 

1228 Fourteenth Street NW., 

Washington, D. C, March 17, 1905. 
Dear Mr. Loeb : I acknowledge, with thanks, your note of the 16th instant 
and hasten to say that it was the wish expressed to me by Secretary Hay on 
the 7th instant that I take this particular matter up with the Presiden, as it 
was a matter of primary interest to him. I. did not a once come to you, because 
the crowds in your anteroom of Senators, Members, aud everybody during the 
week after adjournment declared to me that I had best delay my business until 
that pressure on the President's time was removed. 

I have beeu informed by a gentleman in the State Department that since the 
7th instant Mr. Hay has not been well and is, indeed, a very sick man, and he 
tells me that unless Mr. Hay gets into far better physical trim he will never 
resume his work in the State Department. On this account I feel very solicit- 
ous about the outcome of the pending fur-seal negotiations, because it will 
all stand or fall upon those items of concession which I allude to in my note of 
yesterday, and which I desire to submit to the President before I return to 
Cleveland. 

Very truly, your friend, 

Henry W. Elliott. 



The White House, 
Washington, March 18, 1905. 
My Dear Mr. Elliott : Replying to your letter of the 17th instant, I would 
state that the President can see you briefly on Monday morning, March 20, at 
11 o'clock. » 

Very truly, yours, Wm Loeb, Jr., 

Secretary to the President. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

1228 Uth Street NW., Washington, D. C. 



Washington, D. C, March IS, 1905. 
* Dear Mr. Loeb : I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this day 
and date, and thank you sincerely for your kind attention. 

I shall be prompt in keeping the appointment, and I shall have my points for 
the President's consideration so arranged, prepared, and authenticated as to 
consume very little of his time. 

Very truly, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 

William Loeb, Jr., 

Secretary to the President. 



1228 Fourteenth Street NW., 

Washington, March 20, 1905. 

Dear Mr. Loeb: I lived up to my promise — I did not consume more than a 
few moments of the President's time. I had the papers all prepared and placed 
them in his hands, so that he can instantly find what has been done and needs 
to be done in the premises, and why and how it was done. 

There was one important point upon which I did not touch, because I did not 
feel at liberty to ask the President for a private interview, and too many were 
in hearing when I spoke to him. It is this: In the British Ambassador we 
have a warm and zealous supporter of our desire to settle the fur-seal question 
so as to restore the Alaskan herd. I know this to be the fact, because, with 
the knowledge and consent of Secretary Hay, I have been in close personal 
touch with Sir Mortimer during the last season (1904) and up to date, having 
been frankly and warmly received by him at the British Embassy. 

He is going to Ottawa in a week or ten days, in response to an invitation of 
the Governor General, Earl Gray. If we put the right tools into his hands he 



PROTECTION" OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 63 

can and will do effective service to aid our cause in the pending fur-seal nego- 
tiations. If he receives from the hands of the President the offer of mutual 
concessions which the senatorial committee have asked Secretary Metcalf to 
approve and give to the President on the 17th instant, Sir Mortimer can use 
the proposition to good effect at Ottawa while there. 

The success of our cause depends entirely upon these concessions. We have 
got to make them or we can not secure the cooperation of Canada; without that 
cooperation we lose the power to restore the herd, which will cease to yield 
any return to our Government after this season's work of 1905 ends; then, 
thereafter, the Public Treasury will have ^o bear the annual charge and burden 
of maintenance of the official and civil life stationed on the islands. 

Sir Mortimer ought to have all of those expert papers and illustrations upon 
the period of great decline and full restoration of the Pribilof herd under Rus- 
sian management, 1817-1867. inclusive, and of our finding of it in 1872-1874, 
which the senatorial committee transmitted to Secretary Hay on January 26, 
1905. for this special object. They are subject to the President's order. 

These records have never been published and they throw a clear light upon 
the past history of the business, which shows us to-day how this Pribilof herd 
was reduced by excessive killing, in 1834, to less than 50.000 seals; then, by 
resting it from all killing for commercial gain, from 1835 to 1846. it was so 
restored by natural agencies that a killing of 30 000 young male seals was 
safely done and annually increased, until 75.000 to 80 000 were taken in 1857, 
and thereafter, annually, up to the date of our ownership, in 1867, the herd 
steadily existing at its natural form and number of some 4.500 000 seals. 

The time is at hand now when this evidence of that great decline and full 
restoration of this Pribilof herd can be used with good effec 1 by Sir Mortimer, 
if the President gives it to him before he leaves on his trip to Ottawa. 

Will you kindly lay this idea of mine upon the President's table, so that he 
may consider it, since I did no f feel at liberty to speak of it in particular, 
under the circumstances above cited, this morning? 

Very sincerely, your friend, Henry W. Elliott. 

Wm. Loeb, Jr., 

Secretary to the President. 



Department of State, 
Washington, March 28, 1905. 
Henry W. Elliott, Esq., 

1232 Fourteenth Street NW., Washington, D. G. 
Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of the letter in regard to fur-seal 
negotiations which you addressed to the President's secretary on the 20th 
instant. 

Tour letter and its inclosures have been referred to the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor, in accordance with the statement made in this department's 
letter to you of the 14th instant. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, Alvey A. Adee, 

Acting Secretary. 



Exhibit C. 



Letter to President Roosevelt, dated August 22, 1906, detailing the official 
record of the relations of Henry W. Elliott with John Hay in framing up 
the fur-seal treaty plan of mutual concession and joint control, which is now 
oefore Congress for that proper legislation which will put its terms into 
effect. 

Oyster Bay, N. Y., August 13, 1906. 
My Dear Mr. Elliott: Your letter of the 11th instant and inclosures hv 
been received, and their contents have been noted. 

Very truly, yours, Wm. Loeb, 

Secretary to the Preside 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

11 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. 



64 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Lakewood, Ohio, August 22, 1006. 

Deak Mb. Loeb : On reflection, I deem it my duty to submit the following: 
statement for the information of the President. I do ""so now on account of 
the precipitation of this fur-seal business by that recent Japanese raid and 
incidents thereto. As my relations with Mr. Hay from April 2, 1900, up to 
the day of his death were, on my part, confidential and strictly observed as 
such by myself, I have never spoken a word or written a line about that busi- 
ness between us to the President, up to this hour, save in that single instance 
of March 20, 1905, when I did so at Mr. Hay's request and you kindly arranged 
the meeting. 

The business between Mr. Hay and myself began, was conducted, and euded 
by his death, as follows: 

On April 2, 1900, I prepared a memorandum setting forth the fact that unless 
the Department of State abandoned the ground officially placed under its feet 
by the " joint agreement " of the Jordan-Thompson Commission, the fur-seal 
herd of Alaska will soon be exterminated under and by the official sanction of 
our Government. I proposed a plan of procedure which would enable Mr. Hay 
to set aside the erroneous findings of this official information, that bound him 
to the Canadian wheel. I asked him to approve it and let me do the expert 
work required. I gave this memorandum to my Representative, Hon. T. E. 
Burton, and he submitted it in person to Mr. Hay on the 6th April, 1900. On 
the 30th April Mr. Hay wrote me, saying that if Congress would, on its own 
initiation, order and provide for this plan of expert work which I had outlined 
to him he would gladly cooperate with me and carry it into effect. On the 1st 
May, 1900, I accepted this condition and offer of Mr. Hay, i. e., that Congress 
should provide for this new deal without suggestion from Mr. Hay. I came to 
Washington from Cleveland on May 3 and quietly went to work among the 
leaders in both branches of Congress. 

1900 to 1904 : At every session of Congress I appeared, and secured this legis- 
lation desired by Mr. Hay in one branch, only to find myself defeated in the 
other by the lessees of the seal islands, who insisted that nothing needed reform 
on the islands, and that no danger of extermination to the herd was in sight. 

At last, after patient, tiresome perseverance, on April 3, 1904, I succeeded in 
getting the warrant for my work passed by Congress, and it was approved 
April 8 in spite of the bitter opposition in both Chambers, led by Elkins and 
Fairbanks in the Senate and by McCall (Boston) and Metcalf (California) in 
the House. 

On the 16th April Mr. Hay took up with Sir Mortimer the first plan of fur- 
seal settlement, which I drew up for him, and which calls for a joint suspension 
of all killing on land and in the sea for a period of 10 years. In the meantime 
the two Governments are to agree upon a proper plan for resumption of the 
killing when that period of its suspension expired. At Mr. Hay's request, I 
secured, on April 12, 1904, the written approval of this plan from the select 
Alaskan Senatorial Committee (Messrs. Dillingham, Nelson, and Burnham) 
and included Senator Fo raker, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
at Gov. Dillingham's request. 

I wanted to define the terms in this draft upon which that resumption of 
killing should be conducted, but the Senators were not ready to agree upon them 
at the time (April 12, 1904), yet were desirous of having it go in just as I had 
drawn it, without terms prescribed in advance. 

I knew that this plan would be rejected by Canada, and said so when dis- 
cussing it ; nevertheless, it would serve as an entering wedge, and perhaps draw 
a counterproposal from Canada, which would enable us to know better what 
that party really wanted ; so we let it go. 

In July it was simply denied by the Canadian Government, with the very 
natural comment that it offered no gain to that Government over exsitin'g con- 
ditions, and that our claim of injury to the herd under the rules and regulations 
of the Paris award was denied by our own official reports, etc. 

As Mr. Hay would do nothing further without the cooperation of the Senators, 
I did nothing until Congress met again in December following. Then I laid 
this status before these gentlemen. They were satisfied now that I was right in 
my idea that we must give the Canadians some share in the business or we 
would never secure their cooperation; but Senator Piatt (Connecticut) sug- 
gested that before we make this proposal we should first put the Canadians 
on record of refusing to agree to any merciful and proper amendment of the- 
Bering Sea rules. 

Accordingly, on January 14, 1905, I drew up for Mr. Hay and the Senators 
an instrument which would amend those rules so as to close August, September, 



PROTECTION op pur seals and sea otter. 65 

and October, now open to the pelagic sealer, and open to him May, June, and 
July, now closed, in lieu thereof. This would eliminate that torture of slow 
starvation to death on the islands of the newly born and helpless young of those 
fur-seal mothers, which are now killed at sea during August, September, and 
October. 

I knew, and fully explained, why this plan, too, would be rejected at Ottawa ; 
but, as a matter of record, the Senators desired that this offer and its rejection 
should go onto the files of the Department of State; then they were ready to 
agree to my plan of mutual concession and joint control. 

Therefore I gave this second instrument, opening May, June, and July and 
closing August, September, and October, duly signed up by the Senators in 
February, to Mr. Hay. He officially transmitted it to Sir Mortimer on the 2d 
of March. It was rejected in due time, as I knew it would be, and for the same 
reasons which I had given. It was refused at Ottawa in June or July, 1905. 

In the meantime, on February 28, 1905, and after I had been all over its 
details with the Senators, I laid before Mr. Hay my plan of mutual concession 
and joint control. Thereupon Mr. Hay assured me that he fully indorsed the 
idea — that unless we offered some political as well as financial gain to Canada, 
nothing could or would be done; but he then told me that as these points of 
mutual concession and joint control were largely matters of business detail, that 
he desired me first to have them clearly defined by the Senators in a letter ad- 
dressed to the Department of Commerce and Labor, which had all of these mat- 
ters of administrative detail and charge in its keeping; that it should be 
approved by that department, and come so approved by that department to the 
President first ; then he could and would act to the best advantage in the 
premises. 

I went into consultation with the Senators, including Senator Piatt (Con- 
necticut), who gave the question a very eritical study, at my request. On the 
7th of March, 1905, with the instrument all perfected, I tried to see Mr. Hay, 
but the Santo Domingo business shut me out. I was unable to see him again 
before he left the department on the 15th of March. 

Thereupon, acting in perfect accord with his oral direction of February 28, 
I took the senatorial letter, duly addressed, to Secretary Metcalf, dated March 
17, 1905, inclosing this plan of mutual concession and joint control, and asking 
the department to approve it and give it so approved to the President. Mr. 
Metcalf received it from me, and then asked me to discuss it with Mr. F. H. 
Hitchcock, who had made a study of the case, and whatever he approved would 
be approved by the Secretary, etc. I did so, without delay. 

On October 20, 1905, I had my first interview with Mr. Root, and he took this 
business from my hands just as it had been laid down by Mr. Hay's sickness 
and death. 

I have had no word or communication with Mr. Root since about it. 

In conclusion, I have this to say : That international settlement at Ottawa 
which will preserve our fur-seal herd of Alaska from swift impending ex- 
termination can not be successfully handled by any officialism, no matter how 
exalted or amiable, which is ignorant of the peculiar private interests that have 
been and are now preying upon it, or of its anomalous and wonderful life and 
habit. 

I am, very sincerely, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 

Wm, Loeb, Jr., 

Secretary to the President. 



Exhibit D. 



Letter to President, dated March 9, 1901, telling him that the Hay-Elliott plan 
of mutual concession and joint control in settlement of the fur-seal question 
can he promptly ratified, if intelligently managed, etc. 

Washington, D. C, March 9, 1907. 
Dear Mr. President : Before leaving for my home this evening it was my 
intention to have asked Senator Dillingham to go up to the White House with 
me and lay the following points in re the pending fur-seal negotiations before^ 
you. In my opinion, they are of the utmost importance with regard to their 
successful ending. 

- 22875—12 5 



66 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

The Senator, however, is out of the city, and I must leave to-night. There 
are several items which I can not properly reduce to writing. I regret it, since 
you should be in possession of them ; but the following statement I can make 
and easily substantiate. 

I. The only settlement which can be made with Canada and which is of real 
sense and value to us is that plan of "mutual concession and joint control" 
which was jointly prepared by John Hay, the senatorial committee, the British 
ambassador, and myself, upon my initiative, February 22-28, 1905. This plan 
of settlement was duly itemized in a letter addressed to the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor by the senatorial committee, dated March 17, 1905, and given 
to that gentleman on March 18, 1905, by myself. This letter was so addressed 
at the request of Secretary Hay, who desired this plan to come into your hands 
approved by the Department of Commerce and Labor first, and before he should 
formally place it in the hands of Sir Mortimer. 

II. Had Mr. Hay lived, and had this plan been placed in his hands with your 
approval, I know that it would have been ratified at Ottawa before the middle 
or end of June, 1905. 

III. As far as I know to-day, nothing has been done in the premises on this 
order of proceeding for a full, final, and satisfactory settlement of the fur-seal 
question. 

IV. Unless this plan is taken up and pressed intelligently and honestly by 
us, first at Ottawa, without delay, in the next two or three months, we will 
never secure a satisfactory settlement of this fur-seal question. 

V. We will not, because the pleasant relations which we enjoy with Japan 
to-day may not endure longer than the close of this year, 1907. We must have 
the modified adhesion of Japan and Russia to the plan of settlement above 
cited in order to make it effective. We can easily gain that adherence to-day, 
but not until we first secure an agreement with Canada. 

VI. We can not treat with Canada, Japan, and Russia simultaneously; it 
can not be done successfully. I have positive proof to my own mind of this 
statement, but I can not fairly reduce it to writing. I have made it a rule ever 
since 1872 never to put anything into writing on this fur-seal question which I 
was not able, willing, and ready to substantiate before any intelligent tribunal 
of naturalists or jurists living; and I can say without egotism that up to 
date no man has ever been able to successfully deny the entire accuracy of my 
published and written statements on this fur-seal life and questions as to its 
management and control. 

VII. If you will order the submission of that plan of mutual concession in 
and joint control of the fur-seal business of Alaska as specified in Article I, 
ante, I assure you that it can be successfully negotiated before the middle 
or end of June, 1907, at Ottawa. It can if it is honestly, intelligently, and prop- 
erly pressed by competent agents of our Government. 

I am, with great regard, your obedient servant, 

Henry W. Elliott. 
To the President, 

White House. 

When Mr. Hay and I agreed upon the terms of this treaty-settle- 
ment plan of mutual concession and joint control, and after full con- 
sultation with the Senators I have mentioned, and Messrs. John 
A. Kasson, special commissioner plenipotentiary, State Department, 
and Hon. It. It. Hitt, then chairman of this committee — whom I now 
have the honor of addressing — when we drew them up, the best 
agreement at that time, March 17, 1905, was that not more than 
150,000 seals were in existence on the Pribilof Islands up to August 
1, 1904. This was the official agreement we then had with Mr. F. H. 
Hitchcock, the chief clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor, 
and who then was in charge of the herd. [He is now Postmaster 
General.] 

With that understanding, which is a matter of official record, 
eight years ago, then Mr. Hay turned to the history of the Russian 
killing of this life between 1807 and 1834, which had reduced this 
same herd of 4,700,000 seals to a scant 60,000 breeding seals and 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 67 

young, by the end of that season's killing in 1834. This decimation 
was solely due to the killing of male seals alone, on the islands. 
Mr. Kendall. You are referring to the Pribilof herd? 
Mr. Elliott. I am referring to the Pribilof herd continually 
through this statement, and never to any other. 

Mr. Kendall. Is that authenticated by some Russian publication ? 
Mr. Elliott. I have all the proofs here, and I am going to sub- 
mit them, and put them in the record. 

This decimation, as I said, was. solely due to the killing of male 
seals alone, on the islands — that is, to the killing of all the choice, 
large young male seals that could be culled out of the driven herds, 
were killed annually, prior to that date, since 1804, by the local 
island agents of the old Russian- American Co. Not the least hint 
even of this complete destruction to that herd then can be laid to 
the work of sea killing or pelagic sealing, as I first termed it in my 
letter to Secretary Bayard in December, 1887. 

Mr. Kendall. When did you term that " pelagic sealing " ? 
Mr. Elliott. I originated that word. I used it for the first time 
in this letter to Mr. Bayard. 
Mr. Kendall. When? 
Mr. Elliott. In December. 1887. 

Mr. Kendall. You originated that word to describe a condition 
which manifested itself then for the first time ? 

Mr. Elliott. I used it then unconsciously, and I never thon.o-ht 
much about it, but I see that the Century Dictionary has credited 
me with the authorship of it. 

Mr. Goodwin. Why did you use that term ? 

Mr. Elliott. Because it was the best brief word of expression I 
could give this work to Mr. Bayard of the killing in the open sea. 

That letter was the first specific notice that our Government ever 
received of the dansrer ahead for this life from that industry. Pro- 
foundly impressed by this indisputable and evil record of the Rus- 
sian work, Mr. Hay agreed without any reservation whatever to my 
suggestion that this work of our lessees of the islands or contractors — ■ 
which was conducted exactly as the Russians had hitherto managed 
its order, and which could end in no other way — that these lessees 
should be eliminated from any further consideration in the premises, 
and that a rest from all killine- for commercial purposes for at least 
10 years on these islands should be ordered in any treaty that we 
might be able to make then (in 1905) with Great Britain first, and 
Japan and Russia subsequently. We had to deal with Great Britain 
first, and we did so last February, just as John Hay and I had 
planned seven years ago. 

Mr. Kendall. What was your official relation with the Govern- 
ment then? 

Mr. Elliott. I was then the expert called in by John Hay to aid 
in this work of reopening and getting a treaty made between these 
Governments to set aside the erroneous and worthless findings of 
the Jordan-Thompson Commission, and get a preservation of the 
herd really ordered. Of course, this plan of Mr. Hay and myself was 
bitterly opposed by the lessees: but before we could do anything 
with the Government of Great Britain we had to get rid of our own 
butchers. They said that their butchers at sea were just as decent 
as our butchers on the land. They said they were more sportsman- 



68 PBOTECTION OP fur seals and sea otter. 

like; that they were hunters, while our men were regular butchers, 
and we must get rid of our own butchers as well as theirs. That was 
a plain, square, stand-up proposition from the British Government, 
and it was right. Then I drew up the terms of " mutual concession 
and joint control " which, in brief and in chief, eliminated all private 
interests at once and forever from killing fur seals on the islands 
and in the sea, and which granted Canada an equity in our herd 
when we resumed killing for the surrender or prohibition of her 
right to kill seals in the high seas, and other minor details which 
need no particular note at this time. These terms, submitted to 
Mr. Hay on the 22d of February, 1905, and my original memorandum 
is hereinbefore submitted as Exhibit A. 

He went over it; he made no change and approved it; he then 
asked me to get the approval of the British ambassador, Sir Morti- 
mer Durand, and the senatorial committee, Gov. Dillingham, chair- 
man, and Senator O. H. Piatt, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Com- 
mittee. I had, prior to submitting this memorandum aforesaid, con- 
ferred freely with Messrs. Kasson and Hitt about its terms, and had 
their full approval, which Mr. Hay knew of at the time I came to 
him with it. On the 7th of March, 1905, I was able to inform him 
that these gentlemen had all given this plan of settlement their ap- 
proval. He then said that he wished to have this memorandum 
signed up in a written approval by Gov. Dillingham's committee, 
and referred by them, so approved, in a letter addressed to the Sec- 
retary of Commerce and Labor, asking Mr. Metcalf to approve this 
memorandum in turn, and then transmit the same to the President, etc. 

Naturally, he wanted the cooperation of that department. He 
knew what was holding up that department, and he did not want 
any back fire. 

On the 17th of March, 1905, the Senators addressed and signed 
this letter to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and they in- 
closed this memorandum, so approved, and as desired by Mr. Hay, 
through my mediation. But, unfortunately for the good of those 
public interests involved, Mr. Hay fell mortally ill March 15, 1905, 
two days before I could get that written action on the part of these 
Senators, as aforesaid, arid so stricken Mr. Hay left the department 
on that day, never to return and resume his duties there. 

What took place thereafter officially' in the Department of State, 
by which this unfinished work of fur-seal settlement was held up, 
from October 20, 1905, and denied, until the logic of events com- 
pelled its adoption with Great Britain on February 8, 1911, and 
secured its ratification by the United States Senate, February 15, 
1911, is best expressed in the following authentic brief resume of 
the case, in so far as my relation to it from start to finish goes, and is 
established, to wit: 

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK BONE BY HENRY W. ELLIOTT IN FRAMING THE TERMS OF 
THE FUR-SEAL TREATY DRAFT OF "MUTUAL CONCESSION AND JOINT CONTROL" 
BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. DECEMBER 30. 1904— MARCH 
17, 1905, AND AS RATIFIED BY THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 15, 
1911, ONE WEEK AFTER ITS SUBMISSION, FEBRUARY S, 1911, BY THE SECRETARY 
OF STATE AND THE PRESIDENT. 

November 30, 1904 : Secretary Hay informs Mr. Elliott that he fears that it 
is useless to attempt any change in the existing fur-seal rules and regulations 
as ordered by the Bering Sea Tribunal, in so far as Canada is concerned, unless 



PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 69 

certain concessions are made to the Canadian ministry at Ottawa. He doubts 
whether these concessions would be approved by the United States Senate, and 
asks Mr. Elliott to draft a treaty covering them. 

January 5, 1905 : Mr. Elliott outlines a treaty settlement, in which certain 
concessions are made, for a fur-seal settlement between Canada and the United 
States. Mr. Hay authorizes Mr. Elliott to confer with the British ambassador, 
Sir Mortimer Durand, over its terms. He also asks Mr. Elliott to get the 
approval of Senator O. H. Piatt, chairman Senate Judiciary Committee, and 
that of the Senate subcommittee in charge of Alaskan affairs (Gov. Dillingham, 
chairman), for this treaty draft aforesaid. 

February 28, 1905 : A full, final, and complete agreement between Secretary 
Hay, Sir Mortimer Durand (the British ambassador), the Senate subcommit- 
tee (Gov. Dillingham, chairman), and Senator O. H. Piatt on the terms of the 
Elliott fur-seal treaty draft of " mutual concession and joint control," was 
effected to-day. 

March 7, 1905 : Secretary asks Mr. Elliott to have this plan of mutual con- 
cession and joint control approved in writing by the Senate subcommittee afore- 
said, and transmitted by that committee, so approved, to Secretary Metcalf, 
with its request that Mr. Metcalf approve it in turn and then transmit it 
directly to the President, for transmission by him in turn to the British am- 
bassador, and its official formal submission to the Government of Great 
Britain. 

March 15, 1905 : Secretary Hay is smitten by a severe illness, which causes 
him to leave the Department of State (never to return). 

March 17, 1905 : The Senate subcommittee aforesaid, at the request of Mr. 
Hay, approve the Elliott treaty draft by mutual concession and joint control 
and unite in a letter so approving it to Secretary V. H. Metcalf (this letter is 
given to Mr. Metcalf to-day by Mr. Elliott, who informs him fully of its pur- 
port and Mr. Hay's wishes). 

March 20, 1905 : Agreeably to Mr. Hay's instructions, Mr. Elliott meets the 
President to-day by appointment. He informs the President of the status of 
this treaty draft, aforesaid. The President assures Mr. Elliott that as soon 
as it comes to him from Secretary Metcalf he will act as Mr. Hay desires — 
send it at once to Sir Mortimer Durand. 

March 27, 1905 : Mr. Elliott is informed by Mr. F. H. Hitchcock that Secre- 
tary Metcalf will wait for the return of Secretary Hay to the Department of 
State before he acts, as Mr. Hay desired him. 

July 1. 1905: Secretary John Hay dies at Sunbury, N. H. He had not re- 
sumed any official duties since his departure, March 15, 1905, as stated above. 

October 20, 1905 : Henry W. Elliott, properly accredited, places this unfinished 
fur-seal treaty work in the hands of Secretary Elihu Root. He urges Mr. Root 
to let him finish it at Ottawa, telling him that it can be ratified promptly there 
and here. 

February 8, 1911 : The President sends to the United States Senate this fur- 
seal treaty draft, aforesaid, duly signed up by the Canadian Government. 

February 15, 1911 : The Senate ratifies it, its terms being kept secret until 
Japan and Russia come into general agreement on the prohibition of pelagic 
sealing in the north Pacific and Bering Sea. 

[Note. — The original letters, notes, memoranda, and papers which bear out 
the statements as made above, are in the possession of Henry W. Elliott, and 
can be produced at a moment's notice.] 

On the 11th of March, 1905, and while busy getting the senatorial 
letter approving this plan, aforesaid, signed up, I called at the State 
Department with the following memorandum for Mr. Hay. I was 
unable to see him, as he was preoccupied, and I did not have a 
chance to see him then. I therefore addressed him a letter telling 
him that in my opinion he need not wait on the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor in the premises, but that he could go right over 
to Ottawa and succeed. 

I knew we could. The British ambassador told me that he did 
not want to wait any longer for anybody. 



70 PROTECTION" OE EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

I inclosed this memorandum as explanatory, to wit : 

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY HAY IN RE FUR-SEAL NEGOTIATIONS. 

If the fact that positive gain financially and politically will accrue to Canada 
by a revision of the articles of the Bering Sea Tribunal is fairly placed before 
Sir Wilfrid and his cabinet, these gentlemen will consent to such revision. 

If this fact of positive gain is not made plain to them they will not consent to 
any revision which will result, in a complete suspension of improper killing, 
and that full restoration of the Pribilof fur-seal herd which can alone be secured 
by that suspension. 

How, then, shall this fact of positive good and gain to Canada be impressed 
upon the officialism of that country? 

It may, and can, be done as follows : 

I. By a tentative and informal submission to the Canadian premier and his 
cabinet of the particular concessions which the Government of the United 
States might make in the premises toward a joint control of the business of 
killing the seals, if Canada would unite in an agreement for such joint control. 

II. The nature of these concessions and the details of the same to be per- 
sonally and informally outlined to the Canadian premier and his associates at 
Ottawa by one who is recognized as an authority on this subject of the life 
and habit of the Pribilof fur-seal herd, not only in the United States, but in 
Great Britain. 

III. Such a personal and informal exposition of this question bearing wholly 
upon the subject of great gain to Canada made at Ottawa if she will "unite in 
an agreement of joint control will not fail to arouse the interest of the Canadian 
premier and his associates. They will be free to inquire, talk, and argue all 
points without reserve, since it will not be a conference of record, and nothing 
will be published. When they are ready to announce what they may desire to 
do, it will be done by them, and in their own way. 

The Canadian premier and his cabinet will undoubtedly be most particular 
with regard to the following points of inquiry : 

(a) What evidence is in existence that this Pribilof fur-seal herd ever num- 
bered between four and five millions of seals in 1857-1872, and before it was 
reduced to its small number of to-day? 

(b) What evidence is in existence that this herd was reduced in 1834 to less 
than 50,000 seals by killing at the hands of man, and then fully restored by 
rest from this excessive killing to its full natural form and number of between 
lour and five millions by 1857-1860? 

When' this evideuce so demanded is submitted to these officials and personally 
detailed to them in ready, accurate response to any and all items of inquiry 
as to the past and present history of the herd, then these gentlemen will be im- 
pressed by the facts so declared ; they then can and will fully understand how 
the small nucleus of that herd as it exists to-day can be easily restored to the 
immense proportion of its natural form and number. 

Thus impressed, then the details of a joint control for suspension and re- 
sumption of killing by man will become intelligible and interesting to them ; and, 
with this light on the subject, they will approach it in a very different spirit 
from what would be characteristic of their reception of the plan if that evidence 
of the past decimation and restoration of the Pribilof herd had not been first 
exhibited to this informal yet authoritative manner to them. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

March 11, 1905. 

On the morning of March 15, and it was the day on which Mr. 
Hay left the department, as hitherto stated, I received from him 
the following letter, which told me that he did not want to move in 
this matter any further until the Secretary of Commerce and Labor 
had approved our treaty plans. 

He was right, because that was proper. I admit that. I print his 
letter, as follows: 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 14, 1905. 

Dear Mr. Elliott : I have received your letter of the 11th of March, and, as 
I have already taken the only action I feel authorized to take and expect to be 



PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 71 

absent for a little while from the State Department, I beg you will communi- 
cate to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor any further suggestions you have 
to make on the subject. I have submitted your last memorandum to him. 
- Yours, very truly, 

John Hay. 
Henry W. Elliott, Esq., 

1228 Fourteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Immediately on receipt of that note I obeyed this injunction of 
Mr. Hay, and had that Senators' letter and approval of the treaty 
plan aforesaid written by them and then placed it, March 17, 1905, in 
Mr. Metcalf 's hands. 

This treaty plan of "mutual concession and joint control" would 
have been closed at Ottawa, Tokio, and St. Petersburg during the 
summer of 1905 had Mr. Hay returned and resumed the duties of 
his high office. Unless asked by the committee for a detailed state- 
ment why it was held up from the date of Mr. Hay's illness and de- 
parture from the State Department, March 15, 1905, until sent into 
the United States Senate February 8, 1911, with this original memo- 
randum of mine, dated March 17, 1905, duly printed and appended 
to it, I will pass directly to the subject of a proper bill which Con- 
gress must enact to safeguard its terms, so that this ruined fur-seal 
herd of Alaska can be and will be actually restored to its natural fine 
form and numbers. 

Mr. Goodwin. Would the committee like to hear the reasons why 
this matter was held up from 1905 to 1911 ? 

Mr. Elliott. I will submit a written statement if they want it. 
It would take too much time and there is too much personal matter 
in the thing, gentlemen. As far as I am concerned, you can let it 
go. It is water over the sluice, and let us come to the treaty. History 
will do me justice, and these other men, too. 

The first and sole object in view of this treaty is to so protect and 
guard that small nucleus of 50,000 breeding seals now surviving of 
the Pribilof herd as to enable it to regain its normal magnitude and 
immense value and keep it for all time. 

Do the terms of this treaty now before you, Mr. Chairman, enable 
us to so put them into effect that that desired result can be surely 
attained ? Yes, sir ; this treaty does contain those terms. 

Mr. Garner. I did not catch your remarks. 

Mr. Elliott. I say do the terms of this treaty now before you 
enable you to so put them into effect that that desired result can surely 
be attained ? Yes, sir ; it does. 

The Chairman. I am glad to hear you say that, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. The treaty is all right. 

The Chairman. If the treaty is carried out in good faith by the 
high contracting parties it will practically prevent pelagic sealing, 
will it not? 

Mr. Elliott. If some of us are alive 15 years from now, and some 
of us will be — I may not, and you may not, and we all may be — I 
hope we will. If this treaty to-day is properly safeguarded by you, 
I tell you from my full knowledge of this life, and all the business 
surrounding and connected with it, that you will find a herd of 
1,200,000 breeding cows on that island 15 years hence, and a safe 
surplus of from sixty to eighty thousand choice, 2, 3, and 4 year old 
males that we can kill thereafter and forever without interfering 
with its birthrate ; and I am going to submit the table to you. 



72 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA* OTTER. 

The Chairman. Mr. Knox, the present Secretary of State, has car- 
ried out the views of former Secretary of State Hay, has he not? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Knox succeeded in negotiating this treaty? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he deserves much credit, does he not? 

Mr. Elliott. Certainly. I have not reflected on him, and Ldo not 
like to praise anybody about it, because I hardly know whom to 
praise. 

The Chairman. We should give credit to whom credit is due. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Sharp. You hold that carrying out faithfully the terms of 
this treaty and this law that is back of it to sustain it that that in 
itself will prevent, the slaughter of these male seals that has been 
going on? 

Mr. Elliott. This treaty enables us to stop it. 

Mr. Sharp. Just as it is now ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; just as it is now, perfectly. "We can shut them 
up for 15 years. The treaty is all right. I am coming to the bill now. 

Do the terms of this bill, IT. R. 16571, now before you properly 
interpret and carry out those terms necessary for that restoration? 
No, sir; they do not. They are not equal to it; they are ambiguous 
and lack a concise, correct, and clear order to that officialism of ours 
which we are to intrust this business to for the next 15 years. No- 
where in this bill is there a single item, or word even, which puts a 
distinct and positive check to all commercial killing on these Probilof 
Islands for any length of time. Why is this vital and all-important 
omission made? Why, when the records of the past land killing de- 
clare to us the indisputable fact that unless this commercial killing 
on the islands is now totally suspended for at least during the life 
of this treaty the full and complete restoration of this herd can not 
be even sensibly hoped for, much less brought about. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Elliott, may I interrupt vou to ask you a ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Elliott. Cheerfully. 

Mr. Garner. Let us suppose that Congress did pass a law prohibit- 
ing the slaughter of any male seals there for 15 years, and at the end 
of the 15 years Great Britain and Japan and Russia should refuse 
to enter into another treaty of a similar nature, but should turn their 
huntsmen loose, and in the course of 5 or 10 years destroy the entire 
herd again. What would have been accomplished ? 

Mr. Sharp. Would not this be accomplished — proof of the conten- 
tion that if you leave the herd alone, without slaughtering these 
males — would it not be shown beyond all doubt that that was true, 
and would it not be an encouragement to go on and preserve the 
herd? 

Mr. Garner. That is true, if we presume a treaty can be negotiated 
whereby we can continue this magnificent herd as anticipated; but 
they might demand a little more than the 15 per cent. 

Mr. Elliott. They won't demand it, because 15 years from now 
we will kill from sixty to eighty thousand choice seals, worth at least 
$3,000,000 — more likely $4,000,000— and then their equity is more 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 73 

than they have ever hoped to get, and they get rid of all this annoy- 
ance and bother forever. They are the great gainers by this combi- 
nation with us ; and being the great gainers, they will stay with us. 
If the sentiment is evidently with us. and if the money is with them, 
they will stay, surely. 

Mr. Kendall. Would not these foreign powers be deterred from 
the course Mr. Garner suggests by the fact that there is now an 
aroused sense against the extermination of these herds ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; and they would still be glad to unite with us, 
when it is so profitable for them to do it. 

The reason for this rest from slaughter at our hands on the islands 
is due to the fact that this fur-seal life is absolutely and wholly the 
wildest of all wild animal life, save that of the sea otter, which is 
also brought into this treaty. 

Capt. Bertholf made a very sensible suggestion yesterday, and I 
hope that suggestion will be carried through, and sea-otter skins 
should be included with these contraband fur-seal skins, so, just add 
the words " sea-otter to " fur-seal skins." I think Capt. Bertholf 
has covered the matter very well. 

The Chairman. I think that is a good suggestion. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; just put the words " sea-otter " with " fur-seal 
skins.'' 

The Chairman. I shall put that in the bill. I understand from 
the Solicitor of the Department of Commerce and Labor that this 
was left out by an oversight. 

Mr. Earl. Yes ; it was in one of the drafts. 

Mr. Elliott. It does not need to go in the bill except at that one 
particular place, and that covers the matter perfectly. 

When man interferes with the natural laws which govern the 
reproduction of all or any highly organized wild animal life over 
which he has no control, he destroys that life. 

Mr. Fairchild. Professor, I would like to ask you a question. I 
have a dairy of cows, for instance. I have 20 cows and 1 bull, and I 
have as many heifer calves born as bull calves. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fairchild. Of course, I am killing my bull calves off all the 
while. If I had more than one bull it would injure my lierd, and 
of course, if I did not kill the bull calves off I would ruin my herd 
of cows. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fairchild. Is there any relation between that situation and 
the one on the seal islands ? 

Mr. Elliott. Not the slightest, because you have control over that 
bull calf, and you select, and rear him up to the stud. Year after 
year you feed, protect, and clirect its existence. You have no — not 
the least — such control over that fur-seal bull pup or young male. It 
passes from your control the moment it is born. You never know 
whether you see it as the same seal year after year again or not. You 
are making no selection when you kill off these young male seals, 
because you can not save them, and identify and study their good 
points as you rear them up to the stud. 

Mr. Fairchild. Would not a surplusage of bull calves or bulls in 
this herd be a detriment to the herd ? 



74 PROTECTION OE FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 

Mr. Elliott. Not at all. I will bring that all out later. I will 
bring the details and everything in here. However, I will answer 
you right now, because I think you might get clouded, perhaps, with 
other talk. To perpetuate this race as you perpetuate your race of 
fine cattle, you select and breed only the best. If you can not select 
and breed only the best in wild life — and you know that if the best 
do not get on to breed as sires, then that life is destroyed ; if you in- 
terfere with the natural selection you do that very destruction; and 
it is only a question of time, and a pretty short time, too. Now, we 
make no selection of these breeding fur-seal bulls. We can not con- 
trol their coming or going. We know nothing about them from year 
to year. As I said yesterday, if we have taken up two or three or 
four hundred young males and snipped some hair off their heads, 
we can not say we have saved them, because we have not killed them 
in June or July; why, we have simply turned them out to sea, and 
they are gone forever from our knowledge hereafter. We do not 
know whether they live to come back again or not. We do not know 
whether we have saved them or not, 

Mr. Fairchild. There is a natural law of survival of the fittest. 

Mr. Elliott. And that comes by letting these bulls alone and let- 
ting them get together and whip one another out. 

Mr. Faikchild. And fight for the females? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; that is what we want to fix here for the 
next 15 years, so that this life can come back through the only chan- 
nel which the Creator orders it to go through so as to get the best 
sires of the race, and the only sires that can perpetuate it. 

Mr. Shakp. With this system in vogue in the past, is not the temp- 
tation very great to select the bulls for the value of their coats rather 
than for their propagating powers? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; they always do that. The history of the whole 
business is rotten to the bottom, as is also the official attempt to cover 
it up. 

That fur-seal life covered by the terms of this treaty is one which 
we have not the least control over. From its very beginning, to the 
end of this life, we have not the slightest order of its coming or of 
its going, as we see it hauled out on and annually depart from the 
seal islan'ds of Alaska. We can not select its best breeding males and 
rear them on the islands, as we select and rear our best breeding calves, 
foals, or lambs on our farms. A method of barnyard selection can 
not be put into the wild seal herd of Alaska. A farmer in Indiana 
can select the sires for his foals, but no man in Alaska can select the 
sires for the breeding grounds of the fur seal. Therefore, when we 
steadily kill, year after year, as we have done, all of the finest and 
best developed young 2, 3, 4, and even 5 year old bulls, we are in- 
terfering with that natural selection of the fittest sires which must 
be made; we are nullifying the fundamental natural law of its re- 
production of a survival of the fittest, which absolutely governs the 
best and continued existence of this life. When we interfere to do 
that, we at once begin to work its destruction as a dominant species, 
and prevent any complete, healthy, virile restoration of this herd. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 75 

I submit now Exhibit E, as follows: 

Exhibit E. 

The exposure of the Jordan commission's mischievous and improper report on 
the condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, which caused John Hay to unite 
with Henry W. Elliott in framing the fur-seal treaty plan of mutual con- 
cession and joint control, etc. 

[Note for Mr. Loeb.] 

It was this publication as below wliicb opened the eyes of Secretary John 
Hay and caused hirn to agree with my proposal made to him April 2, 1900, 
per" Hon. Theodore E. Burton (my Representative), and which led to my en- 
gagement with him of April 30-May 3, 1900, by which the act of April 8, 1904, 
was secured by my initiation, and by which authority he reopened this fur-seal 
case with Great Britain April 16, 1904, with me as his advisor and expert in 
the premises. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

July 11, 1907. 



[Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 25, 1899.] 

The Alaska Seal Question. 

peof. elliott declares that the case of the united states has been given 
away by the jordan commission. 

The final report of Dr. Jordan on the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands has 
been recently issued. The preliminary reports of this gentleman in 1S96 and 
1S97 have been variously commented on in the press as they appeared during 
the last two years, and the public generally were led to believe that some prac- 
tical good was to accrue from the investigation which he was conducting ; but 
our people now know that Dr. Jordan's " perfect agreement " with the British 
agents was a simple delusion which he so joyfully announced to the United 
States Senate, through Senator Perkins, in these words : " England shows every 
indication of a desire to do the fair thing. Tliis intention is especially clear in 
the fact that she has sent an honorable commission which is familiar with all 
the facts ascertained by us, the head of the commission having been with me 
every day throughout the summer, and he and I being in agreement on all 
questions of policy, as well as on all matters of fact, so far as was developed 
by our conversation during the expedition." (Congressional Record, Feb. 28, 
1897, p. 2619.) 

How badly Dr. Jordan failed to understand his British colleague was made 
plain by that gentleman's report to his Government, issued May 10, 1S97, in 
which Dr. Jordan was taught the sober lesson that Prof. Thompson did not 
subscribe to him in any question of policy respecting the management of tbe 
fur-seal herd and to no essential details of fact. (Report of Prof. D'Arcy 
Thompson on his mission to Bering Sea in 1896 dated Mar. 4, 1897 ; U. S., 
Nov. 3, 1S97.) 

Now, that Dr. Jordan has given public evidence of his utter inability to under- 
stand what his own field associate on the seal grounds in 1S96 intended to say 
or do, I believe I have a good right to show that Dr. Jordan has made an equally 
grave blunder in regard to what I did on the seal islands in 1872-1S74, and is 
equally incompetent to understand what I have said. In the final report of 
his investigation above mentioned he devotes a large space to the subject of 
my work on the census of the fur-seal herds in 1872--1S74, and in this space 
endeavors to show that I was " merely guessing," and making " Mr. Elliott 
wholly devoid of mathematical sense, or else must have failed to appreciate 
what his figures really meant." 

In Dr. Jordan's preliminary report of 1896 (Treasury Department Doc. No. 
1913) he alludes to this census work of mine in no such language, and mildly 
doubts the probability of my figures being right. He does not in this report 



76 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

give me the warrant to handle him without gloves which appears in this, his 
final report, and to handle him at once on this question is both my pleasure 
and a public duty. 

Let me describe my early mission and its auspices. I first set out in April, 
1S72, for the seal islands to gather information and collect for the Smithsonian 
Institution. When I arrived on the islands April 22, 1872, I landed there with- 
out the slightest pressure from anyone or instructions to work out a case for 
lawyers and diplomats to tinker over and botch. I was to get the data as to the 
life history of the fur seal by observing that life on the ground, and to make 
as full a collection of the skins, skeletons, etc., as the circumstances of my 
living on the islands would permit. 

I was received in the most cordial manner on the islands by both Government 
and lessee agents ; every facility given me to work, and everything that I ques- 
tioned or inquired into was answered and opened in perfect good faith and to 
the best of the ability of those men. I quickly made myself acquainted witb 
enough of the Russian language so that I could freely get the personal ideas 
and facts possessed by the Aleuts or natives bearing on the seals, thus checking 
my inquires from one person to another. I never was misinformed by design, 
and by so doing never permitted myself to be deceived on that score. I devoted 
three consecutive seasons, 1872, 1873, and 1874, to close biological study of the 
fur-seal life, spending the winter of 1872-73 on the islands so that I could see 
with my own eyes the entire routine of arrival and departure of the seals from 
their haunts on the islands. The result of these studies was first briefly epi- 
tomized and published by the Treasury Department in 1874, and finally, when 
I found that I could not so arrange my private affairs as to permit of a two 
years' absence from home in order to study the Russian herd, I gave my elabo- 
rated work of 1872-1S74 to the late Gen. Francis A. Walker, at his solicitation, 
with the sanction of the Smithsonian Institution, for publication as one of the 
initial monographs of the Tenth Census, United States of America. 

In this monograph it became imperative to omit much detail in the line of 
my record of daily observations on the rookeries, because if it were all incor- 
porated the volume would be too bulky, compared with the other monographs 
ahead, for the funds of the Census Office to print; therefore my original col- 
ored rookery maps and hundreds of notes and illustrations carefully drawn 
from life were excluded very reluctantly by the authorities, and only then 
because they believed that I had covered the •ground fully, eveu in their abridged 
form. When I suggested to Prof. Baird that all of the details of my chapter 
on the census of the seals, pictures, maps, and all should be incorporated, he 
replied, saying that I had made it clear enough and easily understood in the 
abridged version. 

Repeatedly, since the publication of that monograph in 1SS2, has this question 
■of the population of the fur-seal rookeries on the Pribilof Islands been raised 
in my presence by naturalists of far greater ability than Dr. Jordan, and I have 
never failed to satisfy them of the substantial soundness of my views and 
figures. Now that Dr. Jordan at this late hour attempts to impeach their 
integrity I propose to impale his sophisms, assumptions, and misstatements on 
a few pointed facts. 

Dr. Jordan says (p. 77) : "The next attempt at enumeration was made in 
1872-1874 by Henry W. Elliott, special agent sent by the United States Treas- 
ury Department to investigate the condition of the herd. He followed the same 
general method inaugurated by Capt. Bryant, finding the shore extent and 
width of the rookeries and allotting a certain space to each individual animal. 
He, however, worked out the plans in much greater detail." This is a deliber- 
ate misstatement of fact. Capt. Bryant made an estimate in 1870 of the area 
and extent of the breeding grounds of the Pribilof Islands, when, at the time, 
he had never laid his eyes on a single rookery on St. George Island and had 
seen but three of the seven breeding grounds on St. Paul, and these he saw 
through a telescope from the deck of a steamer. He then made the assertion 
that " there are at least 12 miles of shore line on the Island of St. Paul, occu- 
pied by the seals as breeding grounds, with the average width of 15 rods. There 
being about 20 seals to the square rod, gives 1,152,000 as the whole number of 
breeding males and females. Deducting one-tenth for males leaves 1,037,800 
breeding females." He then proceeded to estimate the St. George seals at 
" about one-half the number of St. Paul." 

By the very nature of things this estimate was a mere guess — the author of 
it never saw one-hundredth part of the area he figured on, and he did not know 
enough of the animals, and, for that matter, never knew enough to understand 



PROTECTION" OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 77 

that placing 20 of them on a square rod of superficial area was a ludicrous ex- 
pansion of their real method of hauling on the breeding grounds. It was the 
frank and good-natured personal admission of the old man, Bryant, to me, 
when I went up with him on the same steamer to the islands, in April, 1872, 
that he did not know anything definite about the subject — that he was merely 
guessing, as any old whaler might calculate " dead reckoning " in a fog, that 
caused me, to set so promptly to work when I arrived, on a preliminary topo- 
graphical survey of the area and position of each breeding ground on the 
islands, as well as making surveys of the entire shore lines of both. But I had 
no idea as I began the work and completed it, in so far as the landed area went, 
of making a census of the seals upon the line of Capt. Bryant's speculation, 
because I early saw that there were so many variations in the sizes of the seals, 
the irregular massing and unmassing of the harems, that the plan of locating 
just so many adult seals to a given area was impracticable. 

But as I hung over these rookeries day after day I became impressed with 
the fact that no matter whether the mother seals were present on the ground, 
or absent on their food excursions, their pups, or young ones, never left the 
immediate area of their birthplace on the rookery up to a time in the season 
not later than the 10th or 20th of each July: that if I counted them in a given 
area during that period I should then know just how many cows belonged to it, 
and only by taking the pups as my guide could I get at the real number of 
females; the males were steadfastly on the ground all the time, and then a 
general estimate for the number of virgin females could be made upon the 
ratio of this pup count, as it was a basis of the birth rate of the entire herd. 

"While this subject grew upon me, I called the attention of my associates on 
the island (St. Paul, 1872-1873) to it. One of these gentlemen, Mr. "William 
Kapus, was an unusually well-educated man (the company's general manager), 
and a man of affairs as well. He took deep interest in the solution of this seal- 
space problem as I presented it to him in the following form : also Dr. Kramer, 
the surgeon, another cultivated, scholarly man, aided me in the inquiry : 

1. The seals haul out on these breeding grounds with great evenness of mass- 
ing — never crowded unduly here, or scattered there — so evenly that if suddenly 
every mother were to appear at the height of the season there would be just 
room enough for all, without suffocating or inconveniencing their lives on the 
rocks. 

2. That in estimating the number of seals in the breeding grounds we must 
make the number of pups present at the height of the season the unit of calcu- 
lation, because their mothers are never all present at any one time, not balf, 
and at many times not one-third of them are; that the height of the breeding 
season is between July 10 and 20 annually. 

Upon these two fundamental propositions I stirred up a vigorous discussion 
and examination as to their truth or untruth among the white men then on the 
islands, or South Island especially, late in 1872. and until the close of the season 
of 1S73 the settlement of this question was left open. Then each and every 
white man on the islands at that time (there were nine of them) subscribed 
heartily to the truth of these, my assumptions, as a true working hypothesis. 

Now, what does Jordan say about this particular law of even distribution on 
the rookeries which I formulated in 1S72? Before I quote him I want to say 
that Jordan, when he landed on the Pribilof Islands for the first time in his 
life, July 8, 1896, saw nothing but a ghostly remnant of the life I was observing 
and studying in 1872-1874; the few seals that have in declining generations 
survived and were wandering about over the edges of those immense areas of 
deserted hauling grounds of 1872, and had ranged themselves in widely scat- 
tered and irregularly massed harems on fringes of the abandoned rookery slopes 
of 1872, became t'o his inexperienced eye " a great many thousands " and " a 
strong nucleus." Never having seen what I saw, he became deeply impressed 
with the form of what only aroused my pity in 1890, as it had stimulated my 
wonder and admiration in 1872-1874. With this wretched understanding and 
loaded to the gunwale with it, Jordan says in regard to my basic proportions 
as above cited : 

" One who is familiar with the nature of the breeding grounds can not help 
feeling that in the foundation of this law Mr. Elliott did not have the picture of 
the rookeries before him. Had he traveled over the length and breadth of the 
rookeries, as was done in 1896 and 1897, he never would have proposed such a 
law ; that there should be as many seals to the square rod on the jagged and 
broken lava rocks of Kitovi or on the broken slopes of Gorbatch, where the ani- 
mals are now, and must have then been, separated by bowlders weighing tons, 



78 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

should be the same as on the smooth sand flat of Tolstoi or the level slope of 
Hutchinson Hill is, on the face of it, impossible." 

Just because I had traveled over these rookeries day in and day out, when 
seals were there and when absent, was why I recognized this law of distribu- 
tion, and I will safely venture to say that I have taken two steps to Jordan's 
one in this work on the rookery grounds ; with every fissure and imbedded lava 
rock (these loose " bowlders weighing tons ", on Kitovi and only few such 
"bowlders" on Gorbatch), I am familiar, and I found to my surprise, at first, 
that Kitovi was an ideal massing ground for -the breeding seals, and Gorbatch 
also ; that these jagged rocks, nearly all deeply imbedded in the detritus of the 
cinder and lava slopes, actually carried more seals than if they were perfect 
plane surfaces. Wherever I found a miniature lava butte on these breeding 
grounds (they are all of volcanic superstructure) that the seals could not 
scale or otherwise occupy, the area of the same was deducted from the sum of 
square feet belonging to the ground, and I never made the "blunder of assum- 
ing the same distribution everywhere," by taking this precaution, and in the 
following way : First, I carefully located the herds as they lay on the several 
breeding grounds during the height of the season — i. e., between July 10 and 20, 
which I discovered to be the time in 1S72 this location was rapidly and accu- 
rately made on a laiKl chart of the rookery ground, prepared early in the 
season and before the seals had hauled out. By having these charts all ready, 
with the stations from which my base lines and angles were taken, all plainly 
in my view when the seals hauled out, it was a simple thing to place the bear- 
ings of the massed herds on the chart; the reef and Gorbatch grounds made 
a busy day's work, and no more, for me, because thus prepared; the same of 
Zapadnie; Tolstoi easily finished in half a day; same of Lukannon; same of 
Kitovi ; Polavina a short day's work ; while Novastoshals, or the large Northeast 
Point breeding ground, took the best part of two days. The St. George rook- 
eries were handled in even shorter time by this method. 

Not content with assuming that I had not traveled over the rookeries as he 
had, Jordan proceeds to ignore the written record of my work in regard to 
counting the pups. On page 79 of his report he makes the gratuitous assertion 
that I did not know that all the breeding seals were not present on the rook- 
eries at any one time during the height of the season. Mark his language, 
which my published work in 1880 disproves every word of: "But of these 
things Mr. Elliott was not aware. He was content to assume that all the 
cows were there." 

What do I say about these cows, published 16 years before Jordan ever saw 
a cow seal, and then for the first time on the Pribilof rookeries? " The females 
appear to go and to come from the water to feed and bathe quite frequently 
after bearing their young, and usually return to the spot or its immediate neigh- 
borhood where they leave their pups." * * * Again I say, "A mother comes 
up from the sea, whither she has been to wash and, perhaps, to feed for the last 
day or two." * * * (Monograph, Seal Islands of Alaska, p. 39; Washington, 
1880.) And till worse for Dr. Jordan, on pages 104 and 105 of the same mono- 
graph, Fish Commission edition, 1882, appears the still more explicit proof of his 
deliberate inability to give credit to truth. What better impalement of Jordan can 
be devised than these words of mine : " The umbilicus of the pup rapidly sloughs 
off, and the little fellow grows apace, nursing to-day heartily, in order that he 
may perhaps go the next two, three, or four days without another drop from 
the maternal fount; for it is the habit of the mother seal to regularly and fre- 
quently leave her young on this, the spot of its birth, to repair for food in the 
sea. She is absent by these excursions (on account of the fish not coming in- 
shore within a radius of, at the least, 100 miles of the breeding grounds), through 
intervals varying, as I have said, from a single day to three or four, as the 
case may be." 

And with this published record of my thorough understanding of the truth 
that the cows are not present all the time, as early as 1872-1S74, in his hands, 
Dr. Jordan deliberately attempts to rob me of that credit which naturalists all 
over this world have given to me and still give for my accurate work on these 
islands. I say, " he attempts," and I say it advisedly, for that is all it 
amounts to. 

From this unjustifiable misrepresentation Dr. Jordan proceeds to make an 
analysis of my figures of the population of the seal rookeries, as published in 
1872-1874 and enlarged upon by me again in 1880. Now he steps upon ground 
of legitimate criticism, and I am more than ready to meet it. With reference to 
my figures (Monograph, Seal Islands, p. 61), he says: "Waiving for the mo- 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 79 

ment the method of obtaining these figures, we may remark that they are not 
easy to understand. Of this total ' of breeding seals and young,' Mr. Elliott in 
the same connection tells us that 1,000,000 ' are young.' There must then be an 
equal of mothers, or 2,000,000 adult breeding females and their pups. To this 
must be added the young 2-year-old cows that are included, though not present. 
Mr. Elliott has himself given us an estimate of these. Considering of the 
1,000,000 pups born 500,000 are females, he says, ' that at least 225,000 of them 
safely return in the second season after birth.' This, therefore, gives us a total 
of 2,225,000 females and young in the complete estimate of 3,193,420, leaving 
868,42S animals which can only be accounted for as breeding bulls. This is 
impossible, and yet no other explanation of the discrepancy is at hand." 

This is exactly quoted as it stands in Dr. Jordan's final report, page 79, and 
if it were not for the deliberate misstatement that " Mr. Elliott in the same 
connection tells us that 1,000,000 ' are young ' " there might indeed be " no other 
explanation of the discrepancy " at hand. But " in the same connection " I do 
not say anything of the kind about only 1,000,000 pups being born out of this 
grand total on the Pribilof Islands; on the contrary, on page 61 (Monograph, 
Seal Islands), I present a carefully tabulated statement of the exact ratio of 
seal life on the several breeding grounds of the Pribilof Islands, summing it up 
by the square feet of sea margin, multiplied by the average depth as " grand 
sum total for the Pribilof Islands (season of 1873), breeding seals and young, 
3,193,420," saying, as I do so, that these figures as above show this total. Then 
I proposed to open another and distinctly separate enumeration of the non- 
breeding or bachelor seals, which I clearly declare entirely outside of any basic 
calculation, having no initial point, like the breeding seals ; and I close this 
summary of the seal life on the seal islands on the following page. 

Then I take up under an entirely different caption an entirely different ques- 
tion. I take up then the question of " The increase or diminution of the seal 
life, past, present, and prospective." I enter upon a purely speculative theme, 
and do not attempt to speak except in broad, general terms. Taking up that 
subject in this connection, and not in conjunction with the statement of facts 
preceding it, I enter upon a hypothetical expression of what I believe the loss 
of life sustained by the young seals amounts to. I use the broad, general asser- 
tion that " 1,000,000 pups, or young seals, in round numbers," are every 
year born upon these islands of the Pribliof group." Naturally to point 
my speculation in figures of loss, which follows, it is better and easier to say 
"1,000,000" than 1,298,710, which would be the exact line of figures if the 
speculation was treated as a matter based upon fact. But I merely assume that 
half of the pups get back as yearlings next year, and that assumption is as well 
or better illustrated by a general figure than a specific one. The result is pre- 
cisely the same anyway, and really has in either case of exact or general figures 
the same value. In my own mind at the time I was inclined to think that fully 
one-half of these pups did not get back, and so I preferred the general or in- 
definite figure rather than to strain an exact division of the pups into a vague 
theory. Jordan himself is guilty of this fusion of fact and theory repeatedly 
in this report. But I never have permitted it in my work. 

Dr. Jordan proceeds to make himself still more erroneous in assumption. He 
says : " But if these figures were in themselves reasonable we must still take 
exception to the method by which they were obtained. * * * On his method 
of surveying the rookeries, Mr. Elliott has given us practically no data." 

The stupidity, or else the effrontery, of this statement as to my giving him no 
data can be well understood by reference to the elaborate charts of these breed- 
ing grounds which are published in my report of 1890. (H. Doc. No. 175, 54th 
Cong., 1st sess.) These surveys were so elaborate and so full of detail that 
Gen. Walker in 1880 was unable to publish them in the Census Monograph, 
owing to lack of funds for their preparation, and I reluctantly inserted a small 
series of indeterminate pen-and-ink sketch maps to illustrate the general idea, 
but in 1890 I took them up to the islands with me and placed my work of that 
season on them in turn, making in this way the very best contrast of the condi- 
tion of 1872-1874 with that of 1890 that could have been devised. 

Unlike Dr. Jordan, I am not a barber's apprentice in topographical work. I 
served three summers under the best of topographers in the field, 1S69-1S71, in- 
clusive, doing exactly such work as this on the seal islands; i. e., making origi- 
nal surveys of unmapped districts in the Rocky Mountain region. Until I made 
my surveys of the seal islands, in 1872-1874, there was nothing on the maps that 
faintly resembled the area, the contour, or the topography of the Pribilof group. 
The Russian charts of them were perfect caricatures and the American copies no 
better. 



80 PEOTECTION OP PUE SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 

So good were my charts of St. Pauls Island that a surveying party of the 
United States Coast Survey, when it landed there in July, 1874, asked for and 
received from me copies of it, which they did not alter in the slightest note- 
worthy degree after spending a week on the ground, and it was shortly after 
published by the Coast Survey Office, with scant credit to me, its author. How- 
ever, I care nothing for that, and I only mention it because Dr. Jordan calls in 
one of his subordinates to appear as a swift witness against me as a surveyor. 
Jordan says : " Of these maps Capt. Moser, in his hydrographic report on the 
islands, made certain tests. Of Mr. Elliott's shore line he says : ' It was a bad 
misfit and rarely stood the test of an instrumental angle.' He further says of 
the topography of the maps that ' it is so vague and indefinite that it is next to 
impossible to do anything with them. I should call them sketches.' " 

It will do Jordan good and take the conceit out of this Capt. Moser to know 
that these charts of mine stood the test of instrumental angles to the entire 
satisfaction of Capt. J. G. Baker, United States Revenue Marine, and Lieut, 
(now Capt.) Washburn Maynard, United States Navy, in 1874, and Capt. 
Colson, United States Revenue Marine, in 1890. Each and every one of 
those trained hydrographers expressed their approval of these charts 
and their surprise at the accuracy with which I had plotted the shore 
lines. Capt. Maynard, in 1874, went all over the rookeries with my de- 
tailed charts of the same, made in 1S72-73, and between us there we verified 
and corrected every one of them, so that these records which I made in those 
years can not be whistled down the wind by any inexperienced or jealous man 
or men. 

Following this attempt to destroy the sense of my chart work (on p. S0) r 
Jordan raises a question, and then answers it, as usual, wrong. He says : " To 
each one of the 7 of the 10 rookeries of St. Paul Island Mr. Elliott ascribes an 
average width of 150 feet. Two of the remaining breeding grounds have 
an average width of 100 feet each and the third 40 feet. * * * Whatever 
the average width of each rookery may have been, it was certain it was not the 
same for all. Neither now nor at the past times Tolstoi, Polovina, Vostochin, 
the Reef, Kitovi, Lukannin, and Zapadin had the same average width. The 150 
feet is a guess, and that only." 

A guess, and that only ! Indeed. The utter ignorance of the method of my 
work which Dr. Jordan assumes, or really is afflicted with, can be well under- 
stood when I take up, for instance, the case of Tolstoi, to show how easy it is 
for certain people, like Jordan, who, having ears, hear not; and eyes, see not. 
On page 38 of my 1890 report, which was in Jordan's hands when he first 
started for the seal islands, appears the following detailed explanation of each 
and every step taken by me in surveying each and every rookery as well as 
Tolstoi. 

Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoi rookery, July 10, 1890. 

[Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.] 

Square feet. 

800 feet sea margin between A and B, with SO feet average depth, 

massed 64, 000 

400 feet sea margin between B and C,. with 60 feet average depth. 

massed 24, 000 

1,600 feet sea margin between C and D, with 10 feet average depth, 

massed , 16, 000 

Jag E has 300 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed 12, 000 

Jag F has 100 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed 4, 000 

Jag G has 120 feet of depth, with 40 feet of average width, massed— 4, S00 

Total square feet 124, 800 

The annexed colored chart * that this legend illustrates carries all these sta- 
tions and base-line points in detail. Every topographical feature is faithfully 
indicated on it, and these specialized lines of average depth were drawn over 
these sections of the herd as it lay upon the ground on that day and date — the 
proper time of the season. 

Now, in order that this detailed analysis of Tolstoi can be summed up in one 
compact sensible expression I take the entire length of its sea margin, 2,800 
feet, and divide the entire' sum of its square feet of massed area. 124,800 feet, 

1 Not printed. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 81 

by it ; that enables me to say, " July 11, 1890, Tolstoi has 2,800 feet of sea 
margin with 44* feet of average depth — 124,800 square feet of superficial area, 
making ground for 62,400 breeding seals and young." 

Here is the result in detail of my survey of Tolstoi in 1872, which was verified 
by myself and Capt. Washburn Maynard, United States Navy, in 1874 : 

Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoi rookery, July 15, 1812. 
[Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.] 

Square feet. 
1,000 feet sea margin between A and B. with 350 feet average depth, 

massed 350, 000 

400 feet sea margin between B and C, with 150 feet average depth, 

massed i 60, 000 

1,600 feet sea margin between C and D. with 30 feet average depth, 

massed 48, 000 

Three thousand feet sea margin on Tolstoi breeding ground, and 458,000 
square feet in it, making ground, in round numbers, for 225,000 seals. 

It will be noted that in this Tolstoi summary for 1872 I ignore the real pres- 
ence of 8,000 square feet, and deliberately reduce that estimate of seals from 
229,500 to 225,000, because I never ran the risk in my work of 1872 and 1890 
of being a foot or two ahead of the real average. I carried this cautious reser- 
vation all througb my surveys of each and every rookery, and this is the reason 
why Capt. Maynard, my associate in the work of 1874, makes his estimate, 
based upon this survey, of the sum total of Pribilof seal life so much higher 
than mine. He declared that be was satisfied from close personal supervision 
of taking all our land angles in 1874 that I was safely inside of the real limit 
of supervision and that the figures of the survey were conservative and right. 
He was then, as he is now, a skilled mathematician and hydrographer, and he 
had the right to his opinion based upon the figures of that careful work. Yet 
Jordan has the sublime impertinence in 1898 to sneer at this unbiased, careful 
survey of 1872-1S74, by saying " the 150 feet is a guess, and that only." (Page 
80, note.) 

I used these figures of 1890 in detail for Tolstoi because I do not give the 
detailed analysis or figures of 1872-1874 (only the summary) in my 1890 report 
of its sea margin and square feet, viz, " 3,000 feet of sea margin, making ground 
for 225,000 breeding seals and 1 their young," not deeming it .necessary to pro- 
duce so many detailed figures when my charts for both seasons were in full 
evidence in the published work of 1890. 

As with Tolstoi, so with every other ' rookery on the Pribilof Islands. But 
Jordan, holding all this incontesitible proof of careful survey in his hands, can 
not " verify Mr. Elliott's surveys of the rookeries." 

Jordan, also, in this connection, has been careful not to quote the reason why 
I made these elaborate charts in 1872-1874. If he did, he would render his 
method of counting the seals, or rather guessing at the exact count of individual 
bulls, cows, and pups, idle and abortive. I said in 1874, speaking of my law 
of uniform distribution of breeding seals on the rookeries : " This fact being 
determined, it is evident that just in proportion as the breeding grounds of 
the fur seal on these islands expand or contract in area from their present 
dimensions, the seals will increase or diminish in number." How well my 
charts of 1890, laid upon those of 1872-1874, tell that story. How futile the 
rambling and self-contradicting seal-counting work of Jordan to express the 
truth. Listen to Jordan himself, on page 101. He unwittingly trips himself 
there on this very point: "The only reliable basis of enumeration has been 
found and determined. This is a count of live pups." (This is what I pub- 
lished in 1872-1874.) Then on page 341, part 2, Jordan hamstrings himself in 
the following language : " It is evidently impossible to make an accurate 
census of the seals on St. Paul Island, because on the great rookeries, as the 
Beef Torbatch, Tolstoi, and Zapadin, no one can either estimate or count the 
cows (sic) ; nor can one do it at Polovina, because there is no one point of view 
where the whole rookery is visible; even the bulls can be only roughly esti- 
mated." Very true, Dr. Jordan ; but why does Dr. Jordan, on page 83, part 1, 
call in this remarkable witness to his own inability to reason on his own lines 
of argument? " In the same year (1879) Mr. Beaman records, under date of 
June 10, that ' there were a couple of thousand bulls ' on Polovina rookeries, 
when Mr. Elliott estimates fully 10,000 in 1874." 

22875—12 6 



82 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

I never made the blunder of attempting to count all the bulls, all the cows, 
or all the pups oh any rookery in 1872-1874. The utter stupidity of such a 
step never entered my head. It never did in 1890, even when the ragged rem- 
nant of the great life of 1872 was before me. It has only remained for Jordan 
and his job lot of assistants to race up and down these desolated breeding areas, 
in their idle attempts to do so, and the record of the self-contradiction of their 
own work bristles with the folly of it on a score of pages in his report. 

I can not ask for space here to express the rapid succession of erroneous 
assumptions and studied misstatements which are strung on the wire of this 
report — that I shall gain later — but I will pick Dr. Jordan up on one more 
point, in conclusion. On page 80, Dr. Jordan says : " But aside from the ques- 
tion of accuracy in the surveys themselves, Mr. Elliott has assigned an impos- 
sible space to each individual seal. His unit of space is 2 square feet to 
each animal, young or old, or 4 square feet for the cow, ignoring the pups. 
* * * In a standing position she (the cow) would, need at least 3 square 
feet, but as the cows are constantly moving about, and coming and going to 
and from the sea, it is impossible to limit one to such space." 

At this point, and in this connection, Jordan may be pardoned for his in- 
ability to understand the massing of the breeding seals in 1872-1874, when 
there were seven to ten times as many of them as contrasted with their num- 
ber when he first saw them in 1896. In 1890, when I landed on the seal 
islands, after a continuous absence from them for 16 years, the sight of their 
abandoned and shrunken grounds impressed me instantly — not so were the 
newcomers, the Treasury agents who traveled up with me ; they, like Jordan, 
only saw " thousands of seals — many thousands," and it was really hard to 
get them to appreciate the gravity of the condition of the herd. I told them 
on the 1st of June, 1890, that they would not get the quota of 60,000, and not 
a man, agent of company or Treasury, or a native for that matter, then agreed 
with me on the islands. But by the end of the month they saw the truth as I 
had declared it. 

Here is wbat I published in 1S72-1S74, relative to the seal unit of space, and 
it is clear enough to men who have reasoned to the line with me on the ground 
itself; to men like Oapt. Maynard, United States Navy, 1874, and William 
Kapus, general manager of the lessees in 1872-73, and all of their official 
sisso'aates who were with them at that time: . 

'Rookery space occupied by single seals. — When the adult males and females, 
35 or 20 of the latter to every one of the former, have arrived upon the rookery, 
I think an area a little less than 2 feet square for each female may be con- 
sidered as the superficial space required by each animal with regard to its size 
and in obedience to its habits ; and this limit may safely be said to be over the 
mark. Now, every female or cow on this 2 feet square of space doubles herself 
by bringing forth her young, and in a few days, or a week, perhaps, after its 
birth the cow takes to the water to wash and feed and is not back on this 
allotted space one-half of the time again during the season. In this way is it 
not clear that, the females almost double their number on the rookery grounds 
without causing the expansion of the same beyond the limits that would be 
actually required did they not bear any young at all? For every 100,000 
breeding seals there will be found more than 85,000 females and less than 
.15,000 males; and in a few weeks after the landing of these females they will 
show for themselves — that is, for this 100,000 — fully 180,000 males, females, 
and young, instead, on the same area of ground occupied previously to the birth 
of the pups. 

" It must be borne in mind that perhaps 10 or 12 per cent of the entire 
number of females were yearlings last season and come up onto these breed- 
ing grounds as nubiles for the first time during this season — as 2-year-old cows. 
They, of course, bear no young. The males, being treble and quadruple the 
physical bulk of the females, require about 4 feet square for their use of this 
same rookery ground ; but as they are less than one-fifteenth the number of the 
females — much less, in fact — they therefore occupy only one-eighth of the 
space over the breeding ground, where we have located the supposed 100,000. 
This surplus area of the males is also more than balanced and equalized by the 
15,000 or 20,000 2-year-old females which come onto this ground for the first 
time to meet the males. They come, rest a few days or a week, and retire, 
leaving no young to show their presence on the ground. 

" The breeding bulls average 10 feet apart by 7 feet on the rookery ground ; 
have each a space, therefore, of about 70 square feet for an average family of 
15 cows, 15 pups, and 5 virgin females, or 35 animals for the 70 feet — 2 square 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 83 

feet for each seal, big or little. The virgin females do not lay out long, and the 
cows come and go- at intervals, never all being on this ground at one time, so 
the bull has plenty of room in his space of 70 square feet for himself and 
harem. 

" Taking all these points into consideration, and they are features of fact, I 
•quite safely calculate upon an average of 2 square feet to every animal, big or 
little, on the breeding grounds at the initial point upon which to ba'se an intelli- 
gent computation of the entire number of seals before us. Without following 
this system of enumeration a person may look over these swarcning myriads 
between Southwest Point and Novastoshnah, guessing vaguely and wildly at 
any figure from 1,000,000 up to 10,000,000 or 12,000,000, as has been done re 
peatedly. How few people know what a million really is ! It is very easy to 
talk of a million, but it is a tedious task to count it off, and makes one's state- 
ments as to 'millions' decidedly more conservative after the labor has been 
accomplished." (Transcript from the author's field notes of 1874. Nab Speel- 
kie, St. Paul Island, July 12.) 

I am satisfied to-day that the pups are the sure guide to the whole number 
of seals on the rookeries. The mother seals are constantly coming and going, 
while the pups never leave the spot upon which they are dropped more than a 
few feet in any direction until the rutting season ends : then they are allowed, 
with their mothers, by the old bulls to scatter over all the ground tbey want 
to. At this date the compact system of organization and massing on the breed- 
ing grounds is solidly maintained by the bulls; it is not relaxed in the least 
uutil on and after July 20. 

Now, with this life study before him,, proportioned to the exact attitudes, 
sizes, and disposition of a la rem of fur seals, what does Jordan say? Hear 
him: "It is true that Mr. Elliott justifies in part his small unit of space by 
certain references to the coming and going of the animals. He asserts that 
after the pups are born the 'individual ccws are' not on their allotted space 
one-fourth of the time, and that the females 'almost double their number on 
the rookery ground without expanding its original limits.' But Mr. Elliott 
failed to grasp what this really lueiut. He sees in it only justification for the 
unit of space, which he bas assigned to the individual animals. It should have 
called his attention to tbe fact that the breeding seals which he saw before 
him, and which he was attempting to enumerate, were but a part and not the 
whole of the rookery population." 

It seems utterly incredible flat any man with the least regard for the express 
command of written directions like those which I have published, as above 
quoted, could make such a ridiculous and senseless reduction of them. Dr. 
Jordan has, however, done so, and here we have the evidence of his weakness 
in cold type. 

In closing I can fitly say that the shame and ruin which overtook our cause 
of the fur seals at Paris in 1893 was no sin of mine, and the continuance of that 
shame and mummery of shallow experts on the rookeries in the Treasury and 
in the State Department up to the close of Jordan's work in 1898 was also 
against my protest. Now that the curtain has rung down on this last seal 
commission farce of our Government with its harlequin show of branding baby 
fur seals on the islands, " perfect agreement " with England, and searching the 
seal sacks of our returning women from Canada and Europe in New York, all 
to the utter indifference of the pelagic sealer, whom the business was to hurt, 
it is to be hoped that a further confession of this impotence of our people to 
meet the Canadians in open argument for some method of saving our fur-seal 
herd from indecent and cruel slaughter may be avoided. 

The responsibility for the ruin of the Pribilof herds primarily belongs to Ben- 
jamin Harrison, James G. Blaine, and the two Fosters — " ex-Gov." Charles and 
the " Hon." John W. We had an admirable case and abundant information at 
our command, but the two Fosters (par nobile fratrum !) ignored it, and put the 
whole question into the hands of vaporing lawyers and ridiculous experts. 
They gave us the absurd Paris " regulations " in 1893. 

The steady continuation of this scandalous order on the seal islands since 
has been made by the indifference of Grover Cleveland and the wretched ego- 
tism of Richard Olney (had Gresham lived the tables would have been turned), 
ably supplemented by tbe present administration. 

The whole business since 1S90 has been a scandal in our departments and an 
imposition upon the taxpayers of the United States. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

Lakewood, Ohio, September 20, 1899. 



84 PROTECTION OF pur seals and sea otter. 

Gentlemen, I want to take up the proof of what I have said, and 
publish it without comment, as to the Russian records. 

Mr. SiiARr. You mean you are going to consider that now? 

Mr. Elliott. No; I will simply put that in the record here. 

Mr. Sharp. I would like some information as to the practice of 
Russia and Japan. 

Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that. That statement I have just 
made, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am sure is 
one that appeals to your immediate understanding and full appreci- 
ation. Think for a moment of the puerility of a claim that because 
during the last seven or eight years a so-called " selection " and a 
so-called "reservation" of a few hundred male seals has been made 
every June, before killing in July, and that these young males so 
"saved" and turned loose into the sea— all beyond our ken- -that 
they have safely run the gantlet of the pelagic hunters and the food 
drives on these islands made every October and November follow- 
ing. No living man knows how many of those " saved," " reserved," 
and " spared " seals of last June will, after running this gantlet 
at sea of natural and unnatural enemies around the islands, and 
again the food drives on the islands in the autumn, and then going 
off and out, not to return until after a circuit made of 5.000 miles 
of migration in the north Pacific Ocean, between November last 
and next June — no man living knows how many of them so saved 
haul out again, if any, when they reappear in the following year. 
No man can identify a single one of them, and this is the " selection " 
which they are talking about in the scientific ( ? ) Bureau of Fish- 
eries ! 

The assertion made that those seals are selected and actually 
spared and reserved to grow up for service on the breeding grounds 
is an empty assertion, without the basis of any fact, and is wholly 
denied by common sense. That Russian record of 1817-1834 proves 
it. I take pleasure in submitting a brief epitome of that past Sla- 
vonic record which warrants me in appealing to it and asking you 
to weigh it well. Please observe that I quote from authoritative 
records in writing to you as follows: 

At the close of the season of 1818 the Russian agent in charge of 
the Pribilof Islands — -Kazean Shaishinkov — sent an earnest report 
to the governor of the Russian-American Co., at Sitka, telling 
him that in spite of the utmost effort on his part it was impossible 
for him to secure the number of choice male skins which he had been 
ordered to take. 

(The committee thereupon took a recess until 1.30 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee met, pursuant to the taking of a recess, at 1.30 
o'clock p. m. 

STATEMENT OF PEOF. HENRY W. ELLIOTT, OF CLEVELAND, 

OHIO— Resumed. 

Mr. Elliott. At the close of the season of 1818 the Russian agent 
in charge of the Pribilof Islands — Kazean Shaishinkov — sent an 
earnest report to the governor of the Russian-American Co., at 
Sitka, telling him that, in spite of the utmost effort on his part, it 



PROTECTION op eur seals and sea otter. 85 

was impossible for him to secure the number of choice male skins 
which he had been ordered to take. He urged a rest from that kill- 
ing for a term of years, saying that he feared if it was not so ordered 
that the seal herds would be destroyed — would " sofftsem ooshall," 
or depart entirely. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to submit here an inside light on that Rus- 
sian work, taken from the letters of this man, exhibited to me in the 
house of his son, at Unalaska, September 2, 1874. I will -not read 
all these excerpts which I made. I ask that this be put in the record, 
because they are the first exhibits of this inside work on those islands 
that have ever been made, and they throw a flood of light on the 
subject. I was on the BeNance, United States revenue marine, which 
was under my orders, Capt. Baker commanding, that summer. I sub- 
mit this as Exhibit G, because it bears out entirely what I am saying 
here to-day. These are my original transcripts, and they are not 
copied, but submitted exactly as I made them, as stated, nearly 38 
years ago : 

Exhibit G. 

The Russian methods of killing and shipping — Fur-seal islands, 1786-1867. 

Father Shaishinkon Hoxtse, 

Unalaslca, September 2, 187.'/. 

Yes, Mr. Elliott, I can tell you much, because my father was a bidarshik ou 
St. Paul Island from 1804 until be died tbere in 1856. I was born there on St. 
Paid Island at Zapadind in 1S08, and I was educated at Sitka for the priest- 
hood, leaving the island when I was 15 years old. 

My father, Mazean Shaishinkon, was born at Kodiak in 1786; he was in- 
structed there in the church school so well that when he was 20 years old he 
was sent up to St. Paul Island by the governor of the company to serve as a 
" bidarshik" (foreman) and as a subpriest or lay deacon in the new church 
just established there. He remained there serving in this capacity until his 
death in 1856 ; he was so highly thought of by the company that they always 
paid all of the expenses of his visits to Sitka and Unalaska and all my school 
charges and costs. It was my father's protest in 1S34 that stopped the killing 
on St. Paul Island. If it had not been for him and the respect which they 
had for him at Sitka, I truly aver that not one fur seal would have been left 
alive on those islands — yes — I will tell you, be patient — I can not talk any Eng- 
lish, and you can not understand me unless I am slow and careful in speech. 
Yes, you may set it all down; it is my word and of which I know, and of 
which, also, I have the writings. 

It is true that Pribilov discovered the islands, sailing out from this harbor 
in 1786, but he was only a ship's mate, in the employ of the merchant, Simeon 
Layheder ; he never did any work on the islands ; he was a navigator, and 
died at Sitka in 1826 on his ship, the Three Saints. At least twelve or thirteen 
different companies began to work on the islands in 1787-88. They took up 
to the islands nearly every Aleutian sea-otter hunter that was alive there on 
this island, and many from the other islands around us. They lived in skin 
tents or shelter during the sealing season, and then most of them came back 
in November to their homes for the winter, leaving only a few men, women, and 
children on the seal islands to await their return in the following spring. In 
this fashion, you understand, a large number of Aleuts lived on the islands erery 
sealing season then, and yet built few houses. That accounts for the absence 
of ruined habitations which you have asked me about. I should say that on an 
average there were at least 400 engaged on these islands every season from the 
beginning of this work in 1787 with the old company, and Baranov put them 
off in 1799-1800. 

Then the company resolved to colonize the islands and have the workmen's 
families live up there with them, so as to avoid this constant uncertainty of 
the shipment of hunters to the islands every year. So in 1S00 the first per- 
manent habitations were made by the natives for homes and by the company 
for agents' dwellings, and the first churches were consecrated on both islands. 
Most of these early people were on St. Paul Island just as you see them now. 



86 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Taking sealskins in those days was very different work from what you nave 
been watching. Every hunter had to daily stretch and air-dry all the skins he 
took. This process made the work very slow then compared to what it is now. 
No one used salt, and no one could have used salt even had they known how 
in those days, since the Chinese market was the only one then open for seal- 
skins, and then buyers wanted the parchment skins, which they tanned and 
wore without plucking. 

When all of these men rushed into the work after Pribilov's discovery, they 
quickly saw and as quickly agreed among themselves that they must not and 
would not destroy the breeding seals. They saw that they could get vast num- 
bers of holloachickie and many young females without disturbing the rookeries. 
This satisfied them and they kept the agreement among themselves faithfully. 
It was the only thing that they did agree upon, for a more quarrelsome, greedy 
set of managers never got together. 

Every energy was put out in getting the skins, and immense numbers were 
taken. There is no count or record made of what the number was annually 
taken by them. They did not tell one another, and each trader's only con- 
cern was to get his season's catch safely off from the islands, and as safely 
laid down at Petropavlovsk, when the skins met the Siberian buyers for the 
Chinese market at Kiachu. I have heard my father say that it is a good 
day's work for a man to prepare 30 parchment sealskins, for the stretching 
and placing of the frames involve much time and frequently stripping. You 
can get some idea of what 400 men might do on this basis. They could make 
between 1,000 and 1,200 skins a day.' Take June, July, August, September, 
and October, into about 20th November, you will have about 120 to 130 working- 
days at the most, and that would give a result of some 130,000 to 150,000 skins 
for their season's work. I am inclined to believe that this is all that they could 
handle or did get at best, and very likely they did not get so many, or if they 
did, many hundreds if not thousands of skins were spoiled in preparation. In 
spite of this immense annual catch of seals, no legend comes down to me of any 
scarcity of the supply while these hunters worked the islands from 17S7 up to 
1799, which was the last season they had this opportunity. Baranov lost no 
time in getting rid of them as soon as the imperial authority from St. Peters- 
burg came to him as governor of the Russia-America Co. 

As to the manner of driving seals for the killing on these islands, I assure 
you that the breeding seals were never disturbed seriously on any of the 
rookeries and never have been in the slightest degree worked by the old 
company. They all drove in the past as you have seen them drive on the 
islands this summer, but with this marked difference : Now 100,000 skins 
can be at once cured within a week or 10 days from the knife. Then it re- 
quired the labor of 400 men to cure such a catch in " parchment " or " laptek " 
shape, all through June, July, August, September, and October annually. Now 
it is all done between the 14th of June and the 1st of August in the salt kenches. 

This necessity of getting only a few skins daily in the past, so as to prop- 
erly cure them, made it imperative to continue the daily work all through the 
season of four or five months. In this manner a great many cows would be 
swept into the drives every August, September, and October, since the breed- 
ing season on the rookeries ends by the middle of August, and then the cows 
often stray over into the path of the drivers. Of course a good many cows 
were taken in this way, but you will clearly perceive that it was unavoidable, 
and that the breeding grounds were never disturbed. 

You call it " enlightened selfishness " ? Well, I hardly understand it that 
way. It was fear of one another that caused them to live up to this agree- 
ment of theirs not to disturb the breeding grounds in their time, and it was 
fairly forced upon the old company by the evidence of swift diminution of this 
life as early as 1804, 1805, or soon after it took sole charge. 

As to the number of seals in the past and earliest working of the islands, 
have you asked the old natives on St. Paul about it? (I then read my notes of 
the conferences of July, 1872, to him.) 

You have done direct what I was going to tell you to do. Those men are 
the only ones now living who know anything at all about the subject. No one 
survives here. 

When my father first went up there in 1804 he was assured by the natives 
that the seals were becoming less and less every season, and that there were 
not then near so many as at some time previous. He at first was not much 
aroused by the complaint, because he saw a vast concourse of seals, and it was 
not until 1808 that he, became himself fully aware of the significance of the 
lament of the natives. He saw a great falling off from 1804 to 180S, and made 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 8*1 

it the«subject of a long letter to tlie church at Sitka and united with the agent 
on the islands to stop the killing for awhile. It was held up on St. Paul two 
years and resumed in 1810, but no great good came of the "zapooska " or rest. 
By 181S the loss of life was so apparent that a still more urgent letter of 
remonstrance was sent down to Sitka from my father. The governor at Sitka 
sent it to the directors of the company at St. Petersburg, and in the spring of 
1819 Capt. Yanovsky came up from Sitka charged by the directors to make a 
full examination into my father's complaint. He passed the entire summer 
on St. Paul Island, and when he went down with his report in November he 
left my father a letter telling him that in every respect was he in full accord 
with the remonstrance and that he was going to ask that my father's wish to 
suspend all killing on the island for a few years be met by the board. Yan- 
ovsky did so report, but the directors were not willing to let up even for one 
season, even though they did not question the truth of Yanovsky's report and 
the sense of his recommendations. 

Well, you know the result. In 1S34 my father again was compelled to make 
a third protest. He showed them at Sitka that there were only a few thou- 
sands of seals left alive, and that if the order to kill was not suspended at 
once and indefinitely their complete extinction was close at hand. He had 
in this third attempt the powerful friendship of Bishop Veniaminov, who 
was then at Sitka, and he succeeded in getting the killing stopped. It was 
just in time. 

I have here copies of all the letters which my father wrote, both to the 
head office at Sitka and to the bishop, which tell the whole story of this 
business from 1808 down to the death of father in 1S56. There are also some 
letters of Veniaminov, in reply and in question, to my father in that box. 

I can not let you take them to Washington — no ; something might happen ; 
for not only the seals are written about, but church affairs are also discussed 
in confidence between them. You may read them all through here and copy 
the fur-seal matters. You know I am head priest of this Unalaskan district, 
and it might hurt me were these letters to be published. There are very 
jealous and envious men in our church, and I do not want to give them any 
cause to complain of me. 

I am sorry that I am unable to part with these letters; yet I can tell you 
all that they contain about the seals, because I have read them many times, 
and what they show is well known to me; ask — ask me ; what I know I am glad 
to tell. 

Oh, they did not care much about the seals then, when the company first 
came in. It was all sea otter. " Get otters, get otters," was the order of 
Baronov, and nothing was said about seals then. Why? Because a sea-otter 
skin was worth 50 to 100 roubles, and a fur seal not over 6 or 7 roubles. 
There were a great many sea otters then; thousands of them then where we 
have none to-day. So you see there was little attention given by the company 
to the numbers or the condition of the fur seals on the islands ; indeed, Baranov 
was so indifferent to them that he never went up to the islands, although he 
was politely urged to go by my father in 1808, when he saw that the seals 
were growing less and less. Baranov was the best governor the company 
ever had, and only on account of his age and high temper was he removed 
in 1814. 

No ; it is not known how many seals, at any time, there were on these islands ; 
you have given the first figures I have ever known. The Russians did not even 
estimate their numbers ; they just said " extraordinary number — plenty, plenty." 
That's all I have ever heard when there were all that they wanted for their 
requisition, and " very few — very, very little " when they order a " zapooska " 
(rest). If it had been sea-otter life, they would have known; yes. indeed; 
they would have known it all. Why, the sea-lion and walrus skins and guts 
and throats were as important — even more important — to the old company then 
as were the seals — more so, I verily believe, because we could not go sea-otter 
hunting without sea-lion or walrus " laftak " to make the lidarkas with, and 
Baronov had every Aleut driven into that work 'way down to Sitka by 1810. 

In 1800, when the company began, the requisition never was greater than 
40,000 to 50,000 skins on St. Paul and 20,000 on St. George, so the Starechs 
say — not half so many as carried away every season. There was no trouble 
about getting this quota every year until 1807 ; then, instead of " making 
this quota." only about half that number was gathered. My father was 
alarmed, and he, as I told you, wrote a long letter to the church ar Kodiak and 
to the governor, Baronov, at Sitka, and told tbem that such , " bard toiling 



05 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

had had at last its effect; the seals must have a rest (zapooska)."' Br.ronov 
ordered the killing on St. Paul to stop in 1S0S, and he let more. than half of 
the Aleuts go down to visit their relatives in Uualaska-^-just kept up the sea- 
son and walrus work of that year and the next (1809). Then, in 1810, the 
killing was resumed, but the seals of the old time were missing. I have told 
you before how my father complained again, and Low, in 1810 Capt. Yahnovsky 
came up to the islands. He was the guest of my father-, who gave his house up 
to him and his servants. He was deeply moved by what he saw. He was up 
there from June until late in October, watching the work. I told you that iie 
saw things just as my father said they were, and he tried Lard in his report 
to get the directors to agree with him for a zapooska, for. he said, if they con- 
tinued to drive all of the choice young male seals to slaughter, as they had been 
doing there, that the species would become extinct. 

Why was his advice ignored? Ah. Mr. Elliott, Capt. Yahnovsky was high in 
the court circles of St. Petersburg. He did' not have so much influence, how- 
ever, as others who were there, too. The times were getting hard for the com- 
pany ; it was failing to make money by reason of the failure of the sea-otter 
chase ; it needed money badly to meet the demands of the investors in its 
stock who were also members of the Imperial Government. That is the cause 
of Yahnovsky's failure to have his way. Baronov was getting old and worried 
over the loss of money to the company, so he was removed. His successors 
were also worried about money; so instead of resting these seals, in 1S20, they 
resumed the killing, and continued to get everything that they could secure up 
to the close of 1821. 

Then my father saw that the natives would not have anything to do or live 
upon in 1822, as the sealing and walrus work was gone, too, if the company 
determined to continue the killing. He resolved even at the risk of the dis- 
pleasure of the authorities to tell the truth and insist upon a zapooska for the 
small number of seals that were left. He also wrote to Bishop Veniamin 
at the same time, telling him the sad condition of the rookeries, and urged him 
to see the governor (Moorayres) and give orders to have a zapooska made at 
once, and to let about half of the natives return to Unalaska, where they could 
live easier, since there was always an abundance of fish there, and that food 
supply is very uncertain to get in the Seal Islands all through the year. 

Moorayres was a merciful and enlightened man, and in spite of the fact 
that the treasury of the company was empty, he gave the order to stop all 
killing in St. Paul Island above 10,000 and on St. George above 600 until the 
directors should be finally heard from. This relief for the seals, the first real 
relief that had been given them since a short zapooska of 1808-1810, was due 
entirely to the prayers of the good bishop and my father's letter. 

Capt. Yahnoosky and Bishop Veniamin are the only high officials who ever 
visited the Seal Islands. Gen. Resanov was there in 1804 for a few hours only. 
He came ashore at Bay Zapadni and looked at the seals, and the natives told 
him then that the seals were surely getting fewer and fewer every year. He 
was our minsiter to Japan and charged with the examination into the affairs of 
the company by the Imperial Government. Baranov was making a great many 
jealous at court by his energy and zeal, and Russia was to see if their charges 
were well placed. Among other charges was the one that Baranov was regu- 
lating the Seal Islands and not getting as many seals as he ought, thus losing 
money for the stockholders of the company. Gen. Resanov promptly acquitted 
Baranov of that charge and nearly everything else of that sort. Resanov re- 
ported that too many seals were being killed, and urged a diminution of the 
killing. 

It was a great event in the lives of those natives, that visit of Gen. Resanov 
in a warship. He was a fine-looking man, and the old natives used to tell my 
father that the smell of the carcasses on the killing ground made him sick 
soon after he stood there, and that made his visit a short one, to their exceed- 
ing regret. My father never saw him, for the general came in July and father 
came up in the November following.' 

From that time until Capt. Yahnoosky came to the islands nothing was done 
in the way of sending a commissioner to the islands. Resanov did manage by 
great effort at St. Petersburg to get a rest for the seals in St. Paul in 1808- 
1S10 — two years — too short a time, but the directors again demanded skins, 
and Baranov did not care, so the killing was resumed, but they never could get 
as many as he wanted, and he had to so report. Then the directors at St. 
Petersburg resolved to send some one up there whom they could all trust in 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 89 

the court. As Capt. Yahnoosky was chosen, he arrived at Sitka the autumn 
of 1818, and presented his letter to the governor. Moorayres was glad he came, 
because he knew that my father was telling him the truth about the seals, 
and that his (Moorayres) word was doubted in St. Petersburg. 

Capt .Yahnoosky came up to St. Paul in the May month, 1819. He was a very 
quiet man, and asked questions all the time. He was on the seal grounds every 
working day, and made notes, notes, notes, which my father says he wrote 
down every day. He spent the whole season in St. Paul, only going over to 
St. George once, and not remaining there long. He said that the business 
over there was just the same as at St. Paul, only not so many seals, and — no, 
my father did not go over there with him. Why? Because the St. George 
work was always kept by itself — had its own books without any connection with 
the business on St. Paul. This was so ordered at the start by the old company 
and never departed from until your people took the islands. Why? Because 
Baranov thought it best to stimulate rivalry between the work on the islands 
by making each one strive to do better every year than the other. It may have 
been good business management, if such rivalry did not hurt the seals, but it 
did hurt them — it destroyed them. 

When Capt. Yahnoosky finished and left the islands in November he gave 
my father a handsome letter, assuring him of his regard and praising him 
for the truthful and intelligent information which he had secured from him. 
At Sitka, in February, Yahnoosky prepared his report and sent it to the 
directors. He did not go home with it, unfortunately for the seals, because he 
had other investigations of the company's work to make. 

Well, the directors did not comply with Yakowsky's recommendation that 
the killing be stopped altogether — they complimented him, but made no change in 
their requisitions. Then Mooragners, who was very much stirred up at Sitka 
by the condition of affairs on the island because he himself went up in 1820, 
after Yakowsky's wish was made known to him, and there saw for himself 
the truth; he decided to rest the seals in 1823, and ordered that no attempt 
to get more than 10,000 be made then (1S23), and for the next year's 
catch the result of the sealing in 1823 would determine ; in spite of all 
they hoped for the seals grew fewer, and the small catch of 8,000 or 10,000 was 
again ordered for 1824, 1S25, and 1826; then an attempt in 1827 was made to get 
40,000, and though all possible effort was made, not quite 28,000 seals were 
secured. 

The same close killing was made in 1828, and . continued to the close of 1834, 
when barely 12,000 small seals could be secured. My father saw that the end 
of this work was close at hand unless the seals had a chance to live and natur- 
ally increase. So, when he sent his report down to the chief manager at Sitka, 
together with the season's catch, November 12, he said that in spite of his 
utmost efforts be had been able to get only 12,000 skins instead of the 32,000 
asked for. He closed this letter by saying that, in his best judgment, it was not 
safe to kill any more seals for several years to come, since the male life was 
on the near approach to complete extinction; he had to do this in humble and 
respectful language; you know that the management was— what you call it? 
Irresponsible? No. "autocratic"? Yes, that is it. It was always obedience to 
orders and no questions about them ; that was the style of the management, 
and my father was trained to it. 

No copy of Yakowsky's report was ever filed in Sitka, or with the papers of 
that office ; it was a special report and for the directors at St. Petersburg. No, 
you will not find anything about it in Techmann's big book which I have here, 
and all that appears relative to that work of Yakowsky is a short letter of 
the directors [showing it], dated St. Petersburg, March 15, 1821, which 
denies Capt. Yakowsky's recommendation, and is addressed to Gen. Mooray- 
nen at Sitka. No, it is not strange that Yakowsky's report was not filed 
with other papers at Sitka. It was a secret report for the information of 
the board, and which the board had secretly ordered. Your report that you are 
making is a public report, and it can not be hidden or suppressed. You see, 
the old company was in difficulty for money, and the Imperial Government 
was being pressed by the stockholders for money which was due and not paid 
for years back, lakowskj's report, which showed the danger ahead to the 
value of that industry, was not the sort of a paper to make public under the 
circumstances, because it was none of the public's business and would only have 
made more trouble for the board. 

For this same reason my father's letters, always telling of loss and danger 
to the seals, were not allowed to be published by the secretary of the com- 



90 PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

pany, and you will not find one of them in this big history of the company 
(Techma nn's). Yes, Techinann is the only man who had access to the com- 
pany's papers, and the only one who has written anything about the company 
based upon facts. 

Yes, Venamann got his facts and figures all from my father. You know 
my father had a dual office; he was the " bidarship." and also the deacon or lay 
priest on St. Paul ; every year or other year sometimes, a full ordained priest 
would visit the islands and marry the people and perforin other functions which 
the deacon could not do. But as a lay priest my father had to make an annual 
report to the bishop at Kdiak or Sitka, and in that way he became well known 
to the church authorities. The condition of the church on St. Paul depended 
for good or bad upon the condition of the sealing business; if plenty of seals, 
then the church was self-supporting: if seals were scarce, then the church 
needed help. So my father's letters always told about the seals, and Bishop 
Venamann got deeply interested in them and encouraged my father to con- 
tinue his notes and observations. This good man became so interested in the 
seals that he came up to St. Paul one June (1825) and stayed there until 
September, all the time engrossed with watching the seals. And since then, up 
to the day of my father's death, in 1S56. every year a letter about the island 
affairs and the seals was sent to the bishop by him. The work of Venamann 
closed in 1837, and was published at St. Petersburg in 1842. Bishop Venamann 
is now the metropolitan at Moscow (i. e., the primate of the Greek Catholic 
Church in all Russia). 

That counting of the seals was done. I know that it seems positively in- 
credible to-day, and does not appear right, but I have heard the story so often, 
and I myself saw the well-nigh destroyed " laasbustchie " (rookeries) in 1837, 
two seasons after the zapooska began. I could have counted them all then, 
one by one, myself. Yes, it is a true story as published by Veniamin. 

I then told him about the ice story, and asked him how he reconciled this 
account of the natives with Veniamin's silence on that score and his figures 
of the killing for 1835, et seq. 

"Did they tell you that? Are you sure you understood or they understood 
you? It is laughable. I never heard it that way before — my father never 
said so. No; there is some mistake. We have had several seasons when the 
summers were late and ice floes hung around the islands to July, but this 
never interfered with the bulls a coming ; only delayed the early landing of the 
holloachickie ; and as to Veniamin's figures of killing, I don't know — I can 
not say. I do know that no skins were taken on these islands in 1S35, for 
none came down to Sitka. I was there then and I know it well. My father's 
letters also said so. • They took several thousand pups (male pups) for food 
in November, 1835 — that's all. Their skins are not salable. It was this way 
for eight or nine years. 

" It is a great pity, and it makes me unhappy when I think of it, that my 
father's daily journal was destroyed by my brother. It was a distressing 
affair to me then and it distresses me now. To have such a loss inflicted in 
such a manner was horrible. It was this way: Paul was very drunk and he 
did not realize the sin and the shame of what he was doing. * * * That 
is a good reason, certainly, for my willingness to let these papers which I 
possess go out of my hands, alone to say naught of the reasons which I have 
given to you. But I have heard so much of this zapooska on the seal islands, 
and know myself so much, that you need not doubt the fact. The killing of the 
holloachickie upon St. Paul was entirely stopped in 1835 — none were killed. 

Little by little the killing was increased from 1835 until, in 1845, 9,000 
holloachickie were taken, and in 1855 35,000 were safely taken, gradually 
increased, and carefully watching tho rookeries as it was done. By 1857 
45,000 were easily secured on St. Paul and 15,000 or 20,000 on St. George- 
all the company wanted — and since then there has been taken annually up 
to the coming of your people in 1868, about 70,000 or 75,000 holloachickie. 
The rookeries" have since 1857 been, just so large and no larger than you see 
them now, and the old natives say there never were any more seals on these 
islands than there are now. 

The old company has never taken 100,000 skins in any one year of its opera- 
tions; it was satisfied in getting 00,000 to 75,000 skins a year at the most; in 
1867 the church records on both islands show that 40,000 were taken on St. 
Pan! and 20,000 on St. George; of these 10,000 or 15,000 of the smaller ones 
were used in the colony (i. e., Alaska) ; the "colonial skins'' were all made 
into parchment and used for clothing and bedding in the settlements. The 



PKOTECTION OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 91 

salted skins were for London and New York. The Chinese fur-seal trade since 
1846 has been supplied from the Kannodn Islands and the Kuril. I don't think 
I know anything worth talking on about those islands. 

As to the manner in which the natives drive now and skin seals, I do riot 
see any difference between it and the methods of the old time, only this : Now 
you get all of these skins at once — in a few weeks; then we could not, as I 
have explained why ; during the last part of the old company's time, i. e., from 
1846 to 1S67, most of rhe catch was then taken and cured in salt, just as you 
do now, and it was all doue in June and July, with a few thousand always 
left over to make in October, so that the natives could have the carcasses for 
winter food. It was then just about the same in every respect of manage- 
ment of the work in 1S46 as it is now (1872), only you are taking more skins 
than the old company took. You pay the natives more and more, and they are 
better housed; they are much better oft than ever before. Yes; in every re- 
spect the natives are better off. But as for the seals, the change is no better 
for them. Is it worse? Time, and time alone, can tell; we shall see. 

The old . company in making parchment skins was never able to ship all of 
its catch in any one season from the islands as the catch is shipped now. It 
found that waiting in a ship around the islands after October was dangerous, 
aud severe loss had attended the practice. So in this way there were always 
many thousands of skins "made" and making on the islands, stored in the 
serais. Yes; I know that Techmann, in his history of the company, says that 
between 1801 and 1804 the old company had accumulated 800,000, many of 
which were spoiled, cut, and thrown into the sea, and all that. But my father 
has said that no skins were ever wasted in this way. He had repeatedly 
heard the full story of the work done by the employees prior to his ar- 
rival on the island in 1804 ; the most that they could take with the men they 
had was not to exceed 40,000 parchment skins on St. Paul; four such seasons 
would only show 160,000 skins, even if they were all allowed to lay in the 
serais at Kodiak. That is a mistake — a big one — and I do not understand 
where he gets the facts ; lie does not print them. In all the time of their occu- 
pation (about 14 years') with 400 workmen between them against the 45 or 50 
which the company retained, even then the employees never could get 
more than 120,000 to 150,000 skins made up in any one season, and they never 
left anything behind them. 

There were usually 25,000 to 30,000 skins holdings over on the islands in 
the serais there and perhaps as many more in the serais at Kodiak or 
Sutwik. It was not possible to have any more in stock at any one time on 
account of the bulk of such a number of bales for safe stowage, to guard 
against injury. But S00,000 skins accumulated at Sitka or Kodiak! Why, it 
would take six or eight big warehouses. No ; its an error — a great one — 
and it is a strange one to get in such a book, but Techmann was only a hired 
man. He wrote the book for the company's use to help them to renew their 
charter at St. Petersburg; it is full of mistakes. 

13. 

"Oh, yes; I know that Veniaminov has first said this, but see he also says 
that 'up to 1817 I have no knowledge to rely upon'" (showing the page in 
the Zapierkie). I myself think that this statement, qualified as it is here by 
Veniaminov, must have been one of those legends of the wanton waste and ex- 
cessive slaughter which had been more or less impressed by repetition as 
the truth, and so used by the bishop. Technamov unquestionably took it from 
the Zapierkie, for he never found any such evidence in the company's lists or 
books. 

Baron Nikolai Resanov, the Emperor Paul's great friend and ambassador to 
Japan. He married Shelikov's daughter in 1793. and always took a deep 
interest in the business of the company after that, naturally. Shelikov died 
in 1796. Resanov died young, on his way back overland from the colony at 
Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, in August, 1806. He was the man who got the charter 
for the Russian American Co. from the Government; nobody else could haA r e 
done it. 

Lieut. Vassilie Yahnovsky, imperial navy; a young man about 2S or 30 
years old. When in the colony the directors and Hagemeister and Moorayviev 
thought very highly of him. He acted as governor from 1818 until 1820 by 
appointment of Hagemeister, pending the action of the directors, who sent. 
Capt. Michael Nicolai Moorayviev, of the imperial navy, over in 1820 to be 



92 PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

chief manager. This man was very intelligent, and in his desire to save the 
seals and oilier business of the company he often disobeyed the directors' 
instructions. For that reason the directors removed hinix in 1828 and sent Capt. 
Chestyahkov out to take the place. 

Father loann Yeniaininov, "a priest here at Oonalashka, just as I am now. 
from 1814 until 1839, when he was made the bishop of all Russian America, in- 
cluding the Ochostk and Kamchatka districts. In 1842 he was called by the 
Holy Synod to the head of our church, where he now is. Pie was born in 1792 
near Kiev, and so you observe that he is an old man now. He was beloved by 
everyone — the natives, the company men, and the high officers all revered hint 
He was a large, fine-looking man, with a smooth, sweet voice like the low 
notes of an organ. He was the wisest and the best man in all these colonies, 
and he stood between the seals and the company so firmly that the Zapierkie 
of 1835-1845 was made. It never would have been made or continued but for 
him. I have his picture here, which he sent to my father from Sitka. See, 
and these our letters." 



Note, September 2, 187J h 

U. S. Marine Cuttek " Reliance," 

Oonalashka Harbor. 

I have passed all of this day with Father Innokenti Shaishnikov, who was 
courtesy and willingness personified in his desire to aid me in getting full 
infoi'mation as to the past condition of the fur-seal herd on the Pribilof Islands. 
"With his permission and in his presence, at his house, I have made the inclosed 
longhand notes of his answers to my questions. 

I want to record here the fact that the package or bundle of letters which he 
refers to are written in Russian script, and very clearly and legibly, so that 
indifferent as my ability is to read written Russian I had no difficulty in perus- 
ing them, but to go all through them and select only that which touches on the 
fur-seal business would certainly take two or three weeks of my time, and I 
have only one day from date to spend in this place. There must be at least 
100 of these letters; some of them are 14 and 15 pages of neatly and closely 
written script. Shaishnikov's letters, as far as I looked into them,, are devoted, 
first, in chief to the church business and the personal details of the natives' as- 
sociation with it ; second, to the sealing work, coming and going of the vessels, 
losses of cargoes, spoiling of skins (in parchment) ; and, third, least though most 
important, he gives in some of these letters accounts' of the seal life and its 
ebb and flow. 

These letters prior to 1S25 inspired Bishop Veniaminov to spend one whole 
summer on St. Pauls Island as the guest of Shaishnikov, and undoubtedly 
caused the bishop to use his great office in helping stop all killing by the Russian 
Co. in 1835 for a period of nearly or quite 10 years upon Shaishnikov's urgent 
recommendation sent down from St. Paul in November, 1834. 

Henry O. Elliott. 



Japporka, J835 — Shaishinkov's letter. 

[Addressed to "His Excellency Gov. Wrangell." (Baron Ferdinand P. Wrangell.) " Thos. 
Arkengelsk" (R. A.), (or "Sitka.") (Chief manager R. A. Co.).] 

Island of St. Paul, November 2, 1834. 

Announce the arrival of the Yealena with the supplies, on the 20th Octo- 
ber, and acknowledge receipt of the same in detail. 

" I am very sorry to say that with all possible exertion I have been able to 
secure only 12,000 skins as against the 32,000 required of me. The people have 
been diligent and faithful, and they have taken every one as it landed this 
season, with the exception of 8,000 " molodets," which I have spared for seed 
on the breeding grounds. I have made this saving because I know by actual 
counting that only 7,000 cows and bulls are now left alive on the ' laasbuschie,; ' 
such is the unhappy condition of this business at the end of this season. In 
view of this great extremity .of the seals, I most humbly and obediently advise 
that your excellency prohibit the killing of seals on this island next season, 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 93 

because I assure you that it is not safe to kill any more young male seals for 
several seasons to come ; and also, another good reason for this rest from killing 
is that even if you do order the work, I can not get more than 5.000 or per- 
haps 7,000 small seals in 1835, and getting them will, I am sure, result in com- 
plete ruin and destruction of the rookeries; nothing will be left to propagate the 
species. 

" The people are in great distress of mind over the disappearance of the seals, 
which they say is due to the excessive killing, and in which opinion I am agreed. 
But this order must prevail next season, no matter whether your excellency 
orders us to kill seals or not — we must have the same supplies of food and 
clothing; but it is -better yet that most of the people go to Unalaska, where 
they can get plenty of fish and engage in the chase of the sea otter while resting 
the seals from slaughter, because with a zaportha we do not need many work- 
men in this settlement, for there are only a few walrus and sea lions left, and 
they afford but little work." 

He then recites the requisition of supplies which will be needed for 1835, to 
come up in the spring of 1S35. chiefly cloth, tea, sugar, pickles, flour, hard bread, 
and " salt butter," a package of red paint for the church, and " 2 accadems," 
"120 gallons vodka," "10 poods tobacco" (no salt meat or anything of the 
sort asked for, but " 20 poods ' eukali ' " — dried salmon). 

Kazwah Mipmhnkob. 

Note. — This letter is a copy in Shaishinkov's manuscript that I have seen 
to-day and made these extracts. 

H. W. E. 
Unalaska, September 2, 1874- 

This report, sent to St. Petersburg, caused the directors of the 
Russian- American Co. to select one of their ablest and best asso- 
ciates, and one in whom they had great confidence, a lieutenant 
(later general), Yanovksy, for the mission of investigation; they 
sent him out, and he landed on the Pribilof Islands in June. 1820. 
He passed that entire summer and early autumn on the islands, 
chiefly on St. Paul Island. 

Mr. Kendall. This man was sent there in response to the state- 
ment that the herd was about to be depleted ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; he was sent there to see what it meant and 
to report back to his associates, because he was one of the directors 
himself; but his mission was confidential, and they wanted to know 
what this trouble on the islands really meant. They did not want 
to stop the killing. He passed that entire summer and early autumn 
on the islands, chiefly on St. Paul Island. In December he sent his 
report to St. Petersburg. That was December, 1819. He not only 
confirmed Shaishinkov's report, but placed the blame in clear and 
explicit terms on the very same method of land killing which our 
officialism to-day is practicing, and as it has been doing during the 
last 20 j^ears, and then declaring it best for the reproduction of that 
life ! Think of it ! I will now submit a resume which will appear 
in this statement, as follows, to wit : 

Way back as far as 1820 the Russians themselves recognized the fact that 
they were culling the herds too closely — that they were ruining the business 
by the land killing of all the choice males; they knew that they alone on the 
islands were to blame, because no such thing as hunting fur seals in the 
water by white men then was dreamed of, much less done. 

Here is this evil of overdriving and culling the herd presented and defined 
50 years before I saw it, and nearly 70 years before Jordan denies its existence 
in 1898. Think of it — -we have sent two investigating commissions since 1S90 
up to our ruined fur-seal preserves on the Pribilof Islands, one in 1891 and the 
other in 189G-9T, and yet in spite of this plain Russian record, and my detailed 
and unanswerable indictment of that particular abuse in 1S90. these commis- 
sioners blindly and stupidly deny it. They attempt to set aside the Russian 



94 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

record by saying that the Russians then killed females as well as males and 
drove them up to the shambles in equal numbers. 

The Russians did nothing of the sort. They began the season early in June 
by driving from the hauling grounds precisely as we do to-day and continued 
so to drive all through the rest of the season ; they ne^er went upon the rook- 
eries and drove off the females ; they never have done so since 1799. How, then, 
did the females get into their drives? 

The females fell into these drives of the Russians because that work was 
protracted through the whole season — from June 1 to December 1. In this 
way the drivers picked up many cows after August 1 to 10, to the end of 
November following, since some of these animals during that period leave 
their places on the breeding grounds and scatter out over large sections of the 
adjacent hauling grounds, so as to get mixed in here and there with the young 
males. Thus the Russians in driving across the flanks of the breeding grounds, 
going from the hauling grounds, during every August, September, October, and 
November, would sweep up into their drives a certain proportion of female 
seals which are then scattered out from the rookery organization and are rang- 
ing at will over those sections of the hauling grounds driven from. What that 
proportion of this female life so driven was, in Russian time, no man to-day 
can precisely determine. From the best analysis I can make of it I should 
say that the Russian female catch in their drives never exceeded 30 per cent 
of the total number driven at any time, and such times were rare, and that it 
ranged as low as 5 per cent of female life up to the end of August annually. 

Now, what does Jordan say to-day about this work which the Russians con- 
demned 70 years ago, and I in 1890? 

"As land killing has always been confined to the males, and as its operations 
are to-day what they have been since the herd came into the American con- 
trol, except in so far as they have been improved, this means that land killing 
is not and has not been a factor in the decline of the herd." 

I went up in 1S90 prejudiced against the pelagic sealer. I am yet ; but preju- 
dice can not make answer to the following facts: 

In 1890 I found, in the place of 3,193.670 breeding fur seals find their young, 
only 959,455. 

In the place of a round million of nonbreeding young male seals on the 
hauling grounds in 1872-1874, I found a scant 100,000. 

It is and was easy to account for the heavy shrinkage of life on the rookeries, 
for the pelagic sealer has been hard at work on the female life since 1SS5-S6 ; 
he has killed in the water 75 to 80 females to every 20 males, and this pro- 
portion in killing ought to be shown on the breeding grounds. It was. 

But what about that infinitely greater loss among the young males on the 
hauling grounds? If the pelagic sealer was all to blame (as Jordan says he is) 
for this ruin of the herd, why should this class of seals of which he kills the 
fewest be the one class most fearfully decimated. 

I began on the ground in 1890 to review every season's work on the islands 
since 1874. I found that in 1883 the supply of surplus male seals had so 
dwindled on the islands that the driving was then extended to all of the 
hauling fields ; that extension declared increased difficulty in getting the supply 
long before the pelagic sealer had entered Bering Sea or had really begun 
destructive work in the north Pacific Ocean. 

If the pelagic sealer had not caused this trouble on the islands in 18S3-1SS7, 
of getting the full supply of killable young male seals, what had? An epidemic 
or disease? No; not a trace of it. Then there remained but two reasonable 
answers; either too many seals were annually killed by the lessees, or the 
method of driving to cull the herds so driven was at fault. 

The effect of killing annually 100,000 young male seals of a single high gradt? 
upon the whole herd as begun in 1S70 was an experiment. It went far beyond 
the Russian limit and method, for it added a much greater danger. It called 
for the systematic culling out of all the seals driven under 3 years of age and 
over 4 years. 

This act of steadily killing every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old male that 
comes up annually in the drives began in a few years to create a serious inter- 
ference with that law of natural selection in the life of the herd which enables 
the fur seal to be so dominant a pinniped. This interference is at once seen by 
a thoughtful naturalist when the continued culling out of the very finest young 
male seals from the herd takes place annually. How long would any stock 
breeder keep up the standard of his herd in this State if he annually slaugh- 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 95 

tered all of the very finest young males that were born into it or brought 
into it? 

Yet Dr. Jordan comes forward in his final report with this plain confession 
of his inability to grasp a well-established truth in regard to the life of wild 
animals.. Listen to him (Chap. IX, p. 12S) : 

"The whole matter (theory of overdriving) is too absurd for serious con- 
sideration,, and might be passed by with the silent contempt which it deserves 
were it not for the fact that it was accepted by the British commissioners in 1S91 
and made the chief foundation of the British contention before the Paris 
tribunal of arbitration." 

Yet, curiously enough, Dr. Jordan, on page 120, immediately preceding this 
dogmatic deduction, cuts all the ground out from under his own feet in the 
following statement : 

" But suppose the killing was continued through a series of years, every 
3-year-old being killed, the reserve would in time be cut off and the stock of 
breeding bulls die out. It is impossible to say how long it would take to 
produce this effect, because we do not know the length of the life of a bull. 
We may infer, however, that it is not less than 15 years, and therefore the 
injurious effects of this excessive killing, begun in any given year and continued 
indefinitely, would not be seen within 10 years at least." 

This he publishes under the caption of "A hypothetical case." 

It is not hypothetical. It is the real story of the driving and killing on the 
islands from 18S0 up to 1890. During all those years I know, from the records 
of the work and the direct personal testimony of the men who did the work, 
that they never allowed a 3-year-old seal to escape that they could get. That in 
1883 they first began to fall behind in their run of 3-year-old seals from the 
hunting grounds of 1S72-1S74, which had so abundantly supplied them. Then 
they began to extend their driving to the hitherto untouched hauling grounds 
of the islands, until by 1896 they were driving from every nook and corner on 
the islands where a young male seal hauled out, and by IS 39, in spite of the 
frantic exertions that they made, they got less than one-quarter of their quota 
of 3-year-old skins. They had to make it up in yearlings and " short " 2-year- 
olds for that year. 

In the face of this positive truth about the work of 1S39, which appears in my 
report of 1S90, Dr. Jordan, in 1S9S, makes the following strange blunder of 
statement: "To destroy this class (3-year-olds) or any considerable number of 
them would at once weaken the herd. But there would be no object in such 
killing, and it has never been thought of" (p. 120). 

Never been thought of! Why, it was the sole aim and thought of the land 
butchers to get every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old seal that could be secured 
in the seal drives from 1S72 to 1S90. When the supply of this grade dwindled 
on the original sources of supply, then the work of driving from the bitherto 
untouched reservoirs was regularly increased with vigor and tireless per- 
sistency. 

But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that this 
overkilling is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: "In the hypothetical 
case above cited we have supposed that every male of a given age could be 
taken. While in theory this is possible, in practice it could probably never be 
done. There are certain hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnic Head, Otter 
Island, Silvitah Rock, and Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and 
never have been driven. The young males frequenting there were left undis- 
turbed." 

This emphatic statement by Dr. Jordan is wholly and completely untrue. I 
have the record and the proof that each and every one of these places of retreat 
which he names above have been annually visited by the sealing gangs on St. 
Paul Island since 18S4 ; and these " undisturbed " seals have been regularly 
driven off from those particular places, so that they would haul out on other 
places where they could be taken more advantageously, or they were killed, 
thousands and tens of thousands of them, right on the ground itself, notably on 
Southwest Point in 18S4-1SS6. They were entirely hunted off from other 
islands because the law and the lease does not allow the lessees to kill seals 
there. And this particular secret work was in progress right up to the hour 
when I stopped it, July 20, 1890. 

Now, who has imposed upon Dr. Jordan with this bald untruth? Who has 
so completely and shamefully misled him? What avails his high personal char- 
acter or his deserved reputation as a naturalist when he makes a gross and a 



96 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

monumental blunder like this? A blunder upon which he bases his whole de- 
fense of an abuse which I condemn. 

I know better. I know that the Russians themselves knew better than that 
in 1820, 79 years ago, and that they then aroused themselves to the truth of 
injurious effect of overdriving and killing on land ; and when, too, at that time, 
there was no such thing dreamed of even as the work of pelagic sealing, much 
less done. 

When, in 1890, I stopped the work on the Pribilof Islands of land driving and 
killing, because it was ruinous to the well-being of the herd, a concerted attempt 
was instantly made in Canada and in Washington to deny my reason for that 
action, and that attempt has continued to this day. Naturally it does ; it will 
continue just as long as there is a seal to kill on the islands. With the pelagic 
sealer in the field the dust can be raised over his cruel, wasteful work which 
will shield and obscure the equally cruel and wasteful work on the islands. It 
will conceal most of it from the attention of those who know but little of the 
business. 

Therefore, I desire in this connection, and pending the action of Congress, 
which must pass sooner or later on the question, to throw some light on that 
particular section of Dr. Jordan's final report, which relates to the subject of 
killing seals on the islands, and wherein he denies the fact that any injury has 
been done — denies it because he knows himself nothing of it. and bas been 
obliged to rely upon other authorities. Who? Well, let him answer for himself. 
I know. 

Dr. Jordan has made two basic blunders in the foundation for his statement 
that no land driving or killing of the young male seals on the Pribilof Islands 
has ever injured the herd, or ever will. His first great mistake is his utter fail- 
ure to understand the Russian method of driving and killing. He refers to it 
frequently, and incorrectly. 

To be brief and explicit. The Russian method of work wns radically different 
from the American system, with special regard to the period of seal driving, 
sizes of seals taken, and method of curing the green pelts on the islands. 

Under the Russian regime the seals were driven in small daily drives all 
through the season, opening early in June and closing late in November, annu- 
ally. All the seals driven in these drives were taken with very few exceptions ; 
or, in other words, all the 1, 2, 3, and 4 year old males and all of the females 
that might be swept up into these drives, after August 10 and 20, to the end of 
the work in November. The Russians rejected in these drives only the very 
" short " or small yearlings, and the ; " patched " or " wigged " bulls, or 5 and 6 
year olds. The percentage of this rejection up to August 10 never was more 
than 2 per cent, and after that not to exceed 5 per cent. 

They (the Russians) were compelled to make these small drives on account 
of their method of curing the pelts before shipment. This they did by air 
drying them, and not salting them down, as we do, in kenches. So they were able 
to handle only a few hundred skins daily, where salting would permit the same 
number of men to handle thousands daily. Air drying green skins in a damp, 
foggy atmosphere like that of the Pribilof Islauds is a slow and tedious process, 
because each of these pelts must be " hoop stretched " and " pegged out " ; as 
much time spent on an air-dried pelt as on the curing of 10 in salt. 
' Under the American order, beginning in 1868, the use of salt was at once 
made, and the difficult question of time in which to cure the skins on the islands 
was solved. Then the object became to so drive, at the beginning of the season 
in June, as to be able to take the skins of 100,000 prime animals before the 
middle or end of July, and then ship the whole catch early in August, so as to 
have it laid down in London by the middle of October, in good time for the 
annual Hudson Bay auction sales, which buyers from the entire world attended. 

Therefore the Americans drove up in four weeks, killed and cured as many 
seals as the Russians would have or could have handled in five months. Also 
they were enabled to make by this driving and curing and selection of a par- 
ticular size or weight of skin that they might determine to take. 

With a vast superabundance of seals in 1872-1874 the Americans naturally 
determined to take nothing out of the driven herds but the very finest animals, 
and these fine skins were then, as they now are, the hides of the 3 and 4 year 
old males. The lessees were obliged to pay the same tax on small low-priced 
skin as on a large fine skin, so they naturally aimed at nothing but the large 
fine animals and rejected the small ones, letting them go back from the lulling 
grounds to the sea. Thus began at once, in 1870, the practice of culling all 



PROTECTION" OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 97 

the fine animals out of the driven herds on the killing grounds, which is a prac- 
tice of infinite harm and sure ruin to the good form and service of the breeding 
grounds. 

The effect of this culling of the driven herds was not more than faintly shad- 
owed out to me in 1872-1874. I saw it then; I made note of it and left word 
with the Treasury Department to guard against it in my report of 1874. (Condi- 
tion of Affairs in Alaska, 1875, pp. 75-777. ) 

Those are the details of a statement which I have made up from 
these letters of Shaishnikov, which for the first time now come to 
light. They are quaint and queer in their phraseology and I could 
not employ them very well for this occasion. 

While the Russian company did not dispute the claims of Yan- 
ovksy's report, yet their commercial greed was so great that they 
attempted instead several halfway measures to check up this destruc- 
tive work of land killing. Just as these men of Mr. Nagel's officialism 
now propose to stop for two, three, four, or five years. Just the same 
arguments and just the same interests behind them. The Russians 
ordered partial " rests," or " zapooskas," of two and three years only ; 
but no good results came of them. The seals continually diminished 
on the breeding grounds, steadily year after year, until the crash 
came in 1834, when there were less than " some 60,000 " seals alive on 
the islands then. 

Thereupon, Mr. Chairman, those Russians reluctantly recognized 
this fact which I have just previously stated — that those natural laws 
which govern the reproduction of any wild animal life that is wholly 
out of our control must not be interfered with by man, provided we 
wish to preserve and restore a threatened species from extermination 
at our hands, and restore it to its full natural form and number, we 
must let that life wholly alone. 

A rest, or "zapooska," for 10 years from all commercial slaughter 
on the Pribilof Islands was then ordered in 1834 and carried out — 
not exactly, but practically. I have the details of this restoration so 
ordered and carried out, given to me by the son of Kazean Shaishni- 
kov, who was in charge of St. Paul's Island, and who kept a daily 
journal during the whole period. The first evidence of recuperation 
was not well seen on the rookeries until 1840. By 1844 a killing of 
20.000 young males, surplus males, was easily and safely made. This 
killing was slightly increased annually thereafter, so that by 1857 a 
killing of 60,000 to 72,000 was easily and safely made, and then held 
at those figures and continued annually up to 1867, when this herd of 
some 4,700,000 (or 5,000,000 at the most) seals passed into our hands. 

When we took possession this Pribilof herd numbered most likely 
5,000,000, at least 4,700,000, seals of all ages — cows, bulls, young males 
and females and pups. 

Mr. Fairchxld. Who made that Russian enumeration and how can 
that be verified? 

Mr. Elliott. That appears from Shaishnikov's own statement, and 
can only be verified by what appears officially. 

Mr. Fairchild. Was it a guess or was it accurately made? 

Mr. Elliott. I do not know how he did it ; no more than I know 
how these men of our own officialism do it up there now. I can not 
tell from their record, any better than I can from the Russian. 

I know that there were 4,700,000 of those seals in existence there 
during the summer by reason of a special mathematical survey 
22875—12 7 



98 PKOTECTIOE" OF FUK SEALS AND SEA OTTEK. 

which I made then. To-day, Mr. Chairman, there are less than 
100,000 of those seals surviving, certainly, not more. 

Therefore, I am fully warranted in the clear light of those facts, 
which account for the ruin of this herd under Russian killing on 
the islands, and which killing has been and is being exactly re- 
peated by our own officialism from 1890 to date, in urging this com- 
mittee to adopt a proper substitute for this bill H. R. 16571 and 
now pending. 

If that bill aforesaid is not amended by striking out section 11 
entirely, every word of it, and substituting a better section, which 
shall absolutely prevent killing for 15 years, then the very object 
for which this treaty is drawn, and made, will surely be nullified. 
Let us now frame an act which will really give effect to the terms 
of Articles X and XI of this convention, and thus effect a full 
restoration, preservation, and protection of the fur-seal herd of 
Alaska, and keep it there, so restored, into the indefinite future, as 
a joint possession of wonderful interest and the greatest value. Let 
us frame this bill so that agreeably to the terms of Article X we 
can give this sorely driven and pitiful nucleus now surviving on the 
Pribilof Islands, a complete rest from commercial killing at our 
hands during the next 15 years from date. 

I will now show you a table, Exhibit F, which will surprise you. 
Yesterday,, the representative of the Bureau of Fisheries, and the 
scientists behind them, told you it will take eight years to double 
the 50,000 females now surviving. You heard that statement that 
it would take eight years, and then another eight years would ensue 
before we had 200,000 cows. Why; the assumption was so trans- 
parently foolish that even the chairman, who had never given it a 
thought, at once began to pick it to pieces. Let me submit to you a 
statement of annual increase from a nucleus of 50,000 breeding 
female seals on the Pribilof rookeries, which will follow a complete 
cessation of killing male seals thereon, provided that that rest dates 
from February 1, 1912, or from and after the passage of this act, 
and is not broken until the 1st of Feburary, 1928, being a close time 
of 15 years. This suspension of all such killing as above cited will 
enable the only power to operate, which is the natural law governing 
this life; and, which alone can effect that restoration, and full 
restoration, to a safe annual rate of increase which will permit an 
annual killing indefinitely into the future of from 60,000 to 80,000 
choice surplus male seals on and after the opening of the season of 
1928; and this killing then done without the slightest injury to its 
annual birth rate thereafter on the breeding grounds. 

In making this calculation — and I am going to take this up now 
and I want these gentlemen to listen to it, and if they can pick a 
flaw in it to get up here and tell you about it. In making this calcu- 
lation an annual death rate of 30 per cent is deducted from the sum 
of increase to the " pups " during the first 12 months of their lives 
and then thereafter 10 per cent death rate, etc., is deducted steadily 
annually from the sum of increase to every other class enumerated 
below. 

This average of 30 per cent is not high enough for the pups in the 
last years of great increase, but it is too high for the first five or seven 
years of its beginning in 1912, while the 10 per cent checked annually 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 



99 



against all the other grades is really higher than it should be, but it 
makes this table below a very conservative statement of fact in es- 
timation. 



Year. 


Breeding 
cows. 


Nubiles. 


Pups 
(males). 


Pups 
(females). 


Yearlings 
(male and 
females). 


2-year olds 
(males). 


3-year olds 
(males). 


4-year olds 
(males). 


1911.. 


50, 000 

54,000 

57, 600 

66, 870 

74,358 

88,793 

103,314 

120,066 

145, 997 

192, 000 

225, 000 

260,000 

321,000 

395, 000 

450,000 

612,000 

800, 000 


10,000 
10,000 
15, 750 
24,300 
26,000 
30, 092 
33,462 
42, 163 
46, 496 
57, 100 
58,000 
61,000 
74,000 
100, 000 
162,000 
200,000 
200,000 


25,000 
27,000 
28,800 
33,435 
37, 179 
44,396 
56, 657 
65,033 
77, 998 
96, 000 
112,000 
130, 000 
165,000 
197,000 
275,000 
306, 000 
400,000 


25,000 
27, 000 
28, 800 
33,4.35 
37, 179 
44,396 
56, 657 
65, 033 
77,998 
■96, 000 
112, 000 
130, 000 
165,000 
197,000 
225,000 
306, 000 
400, 000 










1912.. 


35,000 

37,800- 

40, 320 

46,808 

52,052 

62, 156 

72, 983 

92,830 

104,000 

135,000 

165,000 

200,000 

231,000 

350,000 

400, 000 

450, 000 








1913.. 


15,750 
24,300 
26,000 
30,002 
33,462 
42,163 
46,496 
50, 100 
58,000 
61,000 
74,000 
100, 000 
162,000 
200,000 
200,000 






1914.. 


14, 180 
21,870 
23,600 
27,000 
30,000 
38,000 
40,000 
46,000 
52,000 
57,000 
68,000 
85,000 
140,000 
165,000 




1915. . 
1916.. 
1917.. 
1918.. 
1919.. 
1920. . 
1921.. 
1922.. 
1923.. 
1924.. 
1925. . 
1926. . 
1927.. 


12,762 
19, 683 
21,240 
25,000 
28,000 
35,000 
36, 000 
40, 000 
45,000 
50,000 
57,000 
65,000 
80,000 



I am going now to discuss this table and explain it to the com- 
mittee. Mr. Lembkey told you yesterday that there were 50,000 
breeding cows in the herd. Now, I will take his figures. We have 
got to start somewhere, and it is just as easy to start with 50,000 as 
100,000. He said that last summer, or the 1st of August, there were 
50,000 breeding cows. I do not dispute that. Now, if his figures are 
correct, to that 50,000 breeding cows must have come 50,000 nubiles, or 
cows 2 years old, and, for the first time in their lives, in heat. 

Mr. Lembkey. That 50,000 includes those. 

Mr. Elliott. No ; it does not include those. 

Mr. Lembkey. In my statement it did. 

Mr. Elliott. Then I am glad to hear you say that. I did not 
understand that. I thought you said they were breeding cows; in 
other words, that 50,000 piips were born last year. Did you mean 
that? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. 

Mr. Elliott. Then no matter. That is clear now, but it does not 
make any difference in this table, for we are assuming these figures 
are correct. It seems there are not quite so many. So the table is 
even more important than it was before. Therefore we will bring 
to these 50,000 breeding cows the 10,000 nubiles; but before we do 
that we will allow for 50,000 pups to be born; half of them are 
females and half of them are males. Then the next year we take 30 
per cent away from those 50,000 pups born and they appear as 35,000 
yearlings. 

Mr. Kendall. That 30 per cent is allowed for death ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; and because their natural enemies destroy 
them. I am satisfied that the pups suffer the largest ratio of loss of 
life that any one class suffers after they leave the islands. They are 
poor swimmers compared with the older ones, and they lag about 
more. I was impressed with that fact in 1872 and 1874, whenthe 
yearlings returned. They are easily distinguished. A fool might 
mistake a yearling from all the other classes. Only a fool can do 
that. They have silver-gray backs and porcelain white stomachs and 
chests and they are little fellows. 



100 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Harrison. What do you call a yearling? 

Mr. Elliott. Anything from 12 months up to 2 years. 

Mr. Difenderfer. Is it not a fact also that the younger male seals 
kill the old ones ? 

Mr. Elliott. No ; I never heard of such a thing. 

Mr. Difenderfer. Well, I did hear of such a thing, not among the 
fur seals, but among the seals on the seal islands just off of San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Elliott. Those are different animals altogether. 

Mr. Difenderfer. But they are of the same family, are they not? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; the same family, Pinnipedia, but they are a 
different genus. 

Mr. Difenderfer. I remember there was one there they called Ben 
Butler, and his hide is now on exhibition. The other seals destroyed 
him. 

Mr. Elliott. I have heard of him. 

Mr. Difenderfer. I was just wondering whether the same thing 
prevailed among the fur seals. 

Mr. Elliott. No; not a bit of it. There are all classes of seals, 
and no class injures another. 

The Chairman. Mr. Difenderfer refers to hair seals. 

Mr. ELLioTr. Eight at this point let me say to you that there is 
no animal life that displays the absolute absence of all jealousy, 
meanness, teasing, or bickering that the fur seal does until he reaches 
his fifth or sixth year of age. The females never display any temper. 
They never show any jealousy. The young males play with each 
other up to their four or fifth year just as little puppies do, and they 
never snarl or snap or quarrel. Their living together is lovely, but 
when the change comes to the male and the reproductive fires burn 
in the bull this amiable nature is changed. Then this order I have 
called attention to of natural selection is asserted, and the male 
comes out to the rookery ground determined to lick anything that 
he can and take his station as a sire. From that hour on he is ugly 
and is morose and is surly. He is fierce and untractable. But as 
to every other class, they never injure one another and they never 
quarrel, and their living together is always lovely. 

Now let me get back to this table. We have born this last summer 
of breeding cows 50,000 and nubiles 10,000, not breeding now. We 
have 50,000 pups born. Next year what do we have? We add the 
nubiles to the 50,000 breeding cows and that brings on to the rookery 
54,000 breeding cows, less 10 per cent loss, and 10,000 more nubiles 
from the year preceding, or 1910; so, 27,000 male pups and 27.000 
female pups are born in 1912 and 35,000 yearlings come out in 1912, a 
loss of 30 per cent from the pups born in 1912. Now, I carry that right 
down through this table, 30 per cent loss to the pups, the regular in- 
crement of nubiles, 10 per cent taken from them every year, and 
what do we find? That in 1916, or in just five years instead of 
eight years, these 50,000 female seals are doubled. Then we find that 
by 1927, the end of this period, we have 800,000 breeding cows, we 
have 200.000 nubiles, and we have some 400,000 male pups and we 
have some 400,000 female pups. We have 450,000 yearlings, we have 
20,000 2-year-olds, we have 165,000 3-year-olds, and 80,000 4-year-olds. 

Mr. Goodwin. Making a total of about 2,750,000 ? 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 101 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; pretty near that. That is the way it will stand in 
the summer of 1927 if we will leave them alone now and to that date. 
There are the figures, and I am going to let these official " scientists " 
work on them and tease them if they can, because I have allowed a 
bigger death rate than they themselves talked about yesterday,, but 
they must do it now and in your presence. 

Just as sure as fate, gentlemen of the committee, if you do not put 
that specific limitation to such killing for the coming 15 years, and 
which is warranted and suggested clearly to you by the terms of 
Article X, then I assure you nothing ahead is in sight except a 
repetition on the islands of those futile, halfway measures which 
the Russians vainly put into effect, one after another, trying to get 
around the objections of Yanovsky's report in 1814. All of those 
halfway measures utterly failed, and they ended by the total col- 
lapse of this herd in 1834. You see, they could not put the barn- 
yard selection of Dr. Evermann and Jordan on this wild life, 
although they thought they could then. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, have you the law before you passed 
by Congress in 1910? 

Mr. Elliott. In 1897? 

The Chairman. No; the law of 1910, passed by Congress regard- 
ing the seal herds. 

Mr. Elliott. That simply reaffirms the existing law and only can- 
cels the lease. It made no change at all in the existing law, but just 
canceled the lease. 

The Chairman. Does not that law provide for the killing of 
surplus male fur seals by the Government ? 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, yes; and we want to prevent that. That is at 
the discretion of the department. We want to stop that. We want 
no more of this monkey business up there. 

Mr. Kendall. All that that law of 1910 did after canceling this 
lease you speak of was to simply transfer the killing from this com- 
pany to the department, in the discretion of the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; the butchery went right on, and the injury 
continued just the same. It was no relief at all. 

The Chairman. I suggest that you put that law in the record. 

Mr. Elliott. This treaty does away with it completely, and we do 
not need it at all. It is pleasant to forget it so easily. 

Why, gentlemen, just think for a moment of a continuation, by your 
order, of that mischievous and injurious, yes, evil, work of land kill- 
ing which section 11 in this pending bill (H. R. 16571) provides for. 
Why, indeed, should we continue to do that very injury to this herd 
which that Russian officialism wrought in its short-sighted, greedy 
work of 1820-1834? 

There is another significant and important omission made in the 
pending bill. Why are those treaty articles of this convention of 
July 7 last not printed as they should be — as the preamble to this bill ? 
So printed, then this act becomes both dignified and the more intel- 
ligible to all of the customs agents and other interested officials of the 
high contracting parties. This act which you are considering to- 
day should be illuminated by these treaty articles, which should pre- 
cede it as a preamble. Then every customhouse officer in every 
port, Japan, Russia, Great Britain, and our oavu country, will know 



102 PROTECTION OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

in a moment what the law of Congress means. There would be no 
writing to Washington and getting some ignorant official here to 
pass on its meaning. They are just as competent — everyone of our 
custom agents and revenue marine captains as is the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor to pass on it ; and they will, too, if it is put be- 
fore them right. There is not a captain of a revenue marine cutter 
that can not construe customs law as well as they can anywhere in the 
departments, instantly, on the deck of his vessel. Let him have this 
act with a preamble to it covering all these articles in this convention 
and he will make no mistake. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Elliott, I do not really see the importance of your 
argument with reference to how the bill should be drawn, except as 
to the provisions. A mere question of a point of order would strike 
out everything you suggest under the rules of the House. 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, no. Allow me to call your attention to the prece- 
dent established by the act of April 6, 1894, just like this one, 
which carries this preamble which I am asking you to put in. It 
was drawn by a great lawyer, Benjamin Harrison, aided by a number 
of other great lawyers — E. I. Phelps and I. C. Carter — and I think 
it is a very happy suggestion, because if we have that in the bill our 
revenue marine officers without the slightest difficulty will know what 
right action to take on the high seas, and they will know just what 
they are doing. 

Mr. Garner. That would be a mere matter of convenience. If 
they have the two in separate pamphlets, it would be the same thing. 

Mr. Elliott. The two pamphlets would hardly go together. 

Mr. Kendall. Let me make the suggestion that it is scarcely worth 
while to discuss that proposition, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. I merely make the suggestion, because if I were a 
customs officer and had this act to construe I would like to know what 
it related to. The customs officers would otherwise have difficulty in 
getting at it, perhaps. This act will be posted in every customhouse 
and every port in Japan, Russia, Great Britain, and our own country. 
Of course, I would not mention this except it has been done by the 
authority of men of the highest legal talent, and has worked so well 
with our revenue marine officers and customs officers in the case of 
the act of April 6, 1894.^ 

Mr. Cooper. Whom did you say drew that? 

Mr. Elliott. Benjamin Harrison, who was one of our ablest 
lawyers. 

Mr. Cooper. We never had a more able man as President. 

Mr. Elliott. I agree with you heartily. I have been in consulta- 
tion with good lawyers over in the Senate, and I do not want to ap- 
pear as masquerading in abler men's clothes. They asked me to 
make this suggestion here, and they believe in having it done, because 
I have been over this bill, I may say, with two of the ablest lawyers 
of the Foreign Relations Committee before I came over here to make 
this address. 

When we make that loan of $200,000 to Great Britain, and a simi- 
lar sum to Japan, this treaty expressly provides that it is to be repaid 
at once to us, out of the equity which we give those Governments in 
the proceeds of the killing for commercial purposes, when that kill- 
ing is resumed on the islands, and this equity is then available. This 



PEOTECTIOJST OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTEB. 103 

loan or advance payment of $200,000 to Great Britain and $200,000 
to Japan is taken by those Governments with that express under- 
standing; hence they are bound by self-interests to continue the life 
of this treaty when we resume killing 15 years hence, and they will 
be the great gainers by so doing, as well as ourselves. This under- 
standing, which these Governments have themselves invited, is one 
which should be distinctly defined in this act in making those ad- 
vanced payments. 

It binds them as our partners to us in continuing the life of this 
treaty into the future, indefinitely. In making these advance pay- 
ments, when we refer to the payments in this act, let us call them 
" advance " payments, as the treaty does. At once, we take a mort- 
gage on the good will of these Governments and bind them closely 
to us. I like this idea. This was not my idea, but it is a good one. 
This was done in the State Department. I do not know what would 
have happened if we had gone into the negotiations and Mr. Hay 
had lived, but nothing could have been happier. I want to say right 
here that this suggestion of making an advance payment which they 
are to repay to us when we resume killing is a good one. Japan and 
Great Britain receive an equity of 30 per cent in our herd when we 
resume killing. In 1928 we will kill sixty or eighty thousand 2, 3, 
and 4 year old males. They will be worth not less than $2,500,000. 
and probably $3,500,000, yes, $4,000,000, because they will all be fine 
skins. They will not be the pup skins or " eyeplaster " skins that are 
being brought down here now by these latter-day saints. They will 
be " prime " skins and worth $55 to $60 apiece, instead of these little 
" eyeplaster " skins which sold the other day for $32 or $33 apiece, 
because they were so small. 

Mr. Fairchild. What is the best skin ? 

Mr. Elliott. The best skin is the 3-year-old male. That is con- 
sidered the high notch, and then, as it works either way, it retro- 
grades. 

Then for each year of total suspension of all commercial killing 
on the islands, these Governments are satisfied with the small, nomi- 
nal cash payment to them, at the close of each season, of $10,000 
each. That is a mere nominal consideration, like taking a dollar in 
consideration of some valuable property. That agreement enables 
us to give this herd a complete opportunity to regain its natural 
immense number and value, and it also enables us to recoup all 
these advance payments and small outlays annually for the next 15 
years at once from the proceeds of the first killing, which shall take 
place after this restoration 15 years hence. 

Now, they come along with this plea — about the expense and the 
cost; that we must go in there and kill and kill and quibble and 
piddle around here in little butchering jobs for the next 15 years 
instead of letting that life lay quiet and let its Creator restored to 
our hands, as He will, if we' leave it alone. That killing then will 
not be less than sixty-five or seventy thousand choice surplus young 
male seals, taken safely, and thereafter annually, into the indefinite 
future, worth as the market runs to-day at least $2,500,000, and 
more likely $4,000,000. They say that we will lose $15,000,000 if 
we hold up killing 15 years— weli, what of it, when it enables us to 
gam a herd then worth $100,000,000 to us ? 



104 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 



All these things will come back to us with compound interest, and 
we will be most happily rid of all this miserable officialism, and 
all this miserable meddling with the life which we all want saved 
and restored ; we are all way above the miserable idea of immediate 
revenue only in the premises; that's the butcher's argument. We 
have a higher sentiment. If it was merely a matter of revenue, we 
would be nothing more than a band of butchers sitting here, and 
counting up the cost and the profit of killing this life to the verge 
of its extermination every year. 

Think of all this outlay for the coming 15 years thus actually 
returned to us the very first year after that rest expires, in this way, 
and three times over ; and we, too, having a long rest from any mis- 
management whatever in the premises, which is quite as pleasant to 
contemplate also. 

Then, too, by ordering this necessary rest, we get rid of an idle, 
mischievous, costly, and worthless officialism, which now is fastened 
on that unhappy life — and to our discredit in the premises — simply 
because we are killing a few thousand pup seals, mostly in violation 
of law, up there to-day ; and actually, by so doing, we are hastening 
the extinction of that life. It will be a good thing for the Public 
Treasury and the public property involved to be rid of these officials 
for the next 15 years at least, and forever, perhaps. 

The present cost of officialism on those seal islands is now in- 
volved by the employment of four special agents of the Department 
of Commerce and Labor at a cost of some $15,000 per annum, sala- 
ries and expenses, and a civil list as follows: 



Name. 



Annual 

salary. 



Position. 



Period. 



On St. Paul, season of 1910-11. 

A. H. Proctor 

S. Melovidof 

H. C Mills 

(Chinese) 

N. Bogadanof 

Selected natives 

Do 

On St. George, season of 1910-11 

James Murtha 

C M. Cunninsharn 

(Chinese) 

M. Lestenkof 

Selected natives 

Do 



SI, 800 
1,200 
1,200 
720 
300 
240 
180 



1,200 
1,200 
720 
300 
240 
180 



Store and book keeper 

School-teacher 

Physician 

Cook 

Stockman 

Janitor Government house 
Janitor company house. . . 

Storekeeper 

Physician 

Cook 

Stockman .- . 

Janitor Government house 
Janitor company house. . . 



Indefinitely. 

Do. 

(?) 
Indefinitely. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 



Until fall. 

Do. 

Do. 
Indefinitely. 

Do. 

Do. 



The above makes a total of $9,460, or some $25,000 annually, which 
is an absurd pay roll for so small and perfunctory a service, thus 
rendered, at best. 

We need a few officials up there during the next 15 years of rest 
from slaughter for those seals, but nothing more than the services 
of a storekeeper and bookkeeper, who can also be the school-teacher, 
and a physician on each island, respectively. 

We have had to pay annually, ever since 1890, $20,000 for the 
support, subsistence, clothes and fuel for those natives on these 
islands. Under the terms of this treaty, we can kill a few hundred 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 105 

or a thousand small male seals annually on each island, for natives' 
food. The skins of those seals, sold to the best advantage by the 
Government, will meet this annual cost of maintenance of those 
natives, and the two caretakers aforesaid on each island — the whole 
cost will not exceed $50,000 annually. 

Now, I am coming to a point which I want to emphasize, and I 
take pleasure in doing so. The revenue cutter which will go on 
patrol duty to enforce the provisions of this act can carry up from 
Unalaska all the supplies annually needed, and bring down the 
skins, etc. The captain of this revenue-marine cutter will be the 
proper representative, and he is the only efficient one, in fact, of our 
Government in the premises, and during the whole period of rest 
for the next 15 years he will have nothing else to do, and he and 
his men will welcome this service, which should be expected of them, 
and so ordered. 

Any other officialism stationed up there during the next 15 years 
on those islands will be a useless one. If there, it will find nothing 
but mischief for its idle hands to do; so, the public good is served 
best by discontinuing those departmental agents and half-baked 
naturalists, who have been making bad matters worse steadily on 
these islands ever since 1890. It will be a public imposition if that 
service is continued; if abated and abolished, it will be a public 
benefit. They have never made a suggestion which led to this treaty 
in settlement of the matter. I had to come in here, over their heads, 
and force an act through which enabled me to take it from their 
hands in 1904 ; and I had the opposition of the whole officialism ; but 
we have got this treaty in spite of them. Now, let us get rid of 
them. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
when you have safeguarded this treaty of "mutual concession and 
joint control," whereby four great powers have thus bound them- 
selves most willingly into a pact that declares a common interest 
and mutual pride in protecting and restoring this wonderful and 
anomalous marine life for the benefit of all mankind, I, as the 
author of this plan, now say to you, with all the sincerity of my life, 
that if any or all of us live into the season of 1927, we will find, if 
we chance to visit those seal islands of Alaska, this small nucleus of 
to-day augmented then, by the operation of its own natural laws, to 
that vast and dignified form in which I saw it 40 years ago next 
July. 

The buffalo had to go. It was in the way of the settlement by our 
people of a vast domain, but the fur-seal hosts of Alaska were not 
and never will be. 

Mr. Sharp. How many seals did you estimate were there 40 
years ago? 

Mr. Elliott. 4,700,000. My associate, Hear Admiral Maynard, 
living to-day, who was with me and made an independent survey, 
said there were nearer 6,000,000; but I was very conservative. He 
made his report, and in it said that there were nearer 6,000,000 there. 

There are no mines or mining in their territory. No agriculture, 
no commerce, and no fish or fisheries of the least economic value to 
us are despoiled by them, so we can gladly welcome this restoration 
of that twice-ruined herd of Pribilof's discovery, and speed the day. 

Gentlemen, I am through. 



106 PROTECTION OF FUR SEAILS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Garner. Let me ask you a question in line with your calcu- 
lations. If I understood you, your statement was that in 1834 they 
ceased killing the seals for 10 years ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. But you did not state how many seals were on the 
islands in 1844 as the result of that suspension. 

Mr. Elliott. I have all those details in the documents which I 
have put in the record. 

Mr. Garner. Do you remember now, offhand, what the increase 
was in the 10 years from 1834 to 1844? 

Mr. Elliott. It was very large. It was very much like what I 
submitted in my table to you. 

Mr. Garner. In other words, the experience of the Russian Gov- 
ernment from 1834 to 1844 would justify the figures you have offered 
in this table to the committee? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; and, moreover, my own study of it, and 
taking any analysis of that life which any competent man can make 
who knows it as I know it, and there are plenty who know it as I 
know it, but their mouths have been closed or their eyes have been 
blinded — I do not know why — and they say nothing and sit still 
and allow these men to go on and kill every year "for the benefit 
of the herd " — for the benefit of the butchers. 

Mr. Sharp. May I ask you in this connection whether from your 
own personal study up there you are able to say whether the slaugh- 
tering of these seals is left largely to the judgment of these natives 
whom we support there ? 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, no: they have really nothing to say about it. 
And really, gentlemen, when you come to know them as I know them, 
and nobody knows them better than I do, you will find they are 
amiable, kindly, gentle people. They try to agree with you, if you 
are there in authority, and do anything you want them to do. 

Mr. Sharp. But they do the actual slaughtering ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; under orders. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HUGH M. SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, will you give the reporter your full 
name and your official connection with the Government ? 

Mr. Smith. Hugh M. Smith; Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, we will be glad to hear from you. 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I did not come here expecting to make 
any statement, but I will be glad to give you any information I 
may have. I have been interested in the remarks of Mr. Elliott, 
and would like to correct any impression he may have created in the 
minds of the committee as to the effect of the suspension of all land 
killing on the seal islands during the existence of this treaty. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. Smith. I would like to call attention, Mr. Chairman, and gentle- 
men, to the expense that this Government will have to assume, and 
the losses it will have to sustain, if there is no killing of surplus 
male seals on the seal islands during the next 15 years. In the first 
place, we are obliged to make this payment of $400,000, whether we 
kill any seals or not, and that money will not come back to us at the 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 107 

expiration of this treaty, as Mr. Elliott suggests. It is a payment 
which can only be liquidated during the existence of the treaty. 
There will also be an annual charge of $20,000, or a total of $300,000, 
that will have to be paid to Great Britain and Japan. Estimating 
that the seal herd will increase, as Mr. Elliott says it will, and we 
have every reason to believe it will, we shall lose a revenue of about 
$15,000,000 if we forego all land killing. 

Mr. Kendall. Mr. Smith, do you think the estimate of increase as 
submitted by Prof. Elliott is substantially correct ? 

Mr. Smith. I should think it would be as good an estimate as can 
be made under the circumstances. 

Mr. Kendall. In the event there was an entire cessation of killing ? 

Mr. Smith. Well, the increase of the herd is not contingent on land 
killing in any respect. 

Mr. Kendall. As I understood Prof. Elliott, he bottomed his cal- 
culation upon the cessation of all killing for 15 years. Now, you take 
that into account and you say his figures are substantially correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; as to the increase of breeding seals. 

Mr. Cooper. Have you ever been up on the islands ? 

Mr. Smith. No ; I have never been there. 

Mr. Goodwin. As Prof. Elliott called off those figures I added them 
up in my mind and made an estimate of about two and three-quarter 
million seals. It totals about 2,695,000 seals. 

Mr. Smith. There is no reason why at the end of this 15-year 
period we should not be killing 150,000 or more surplus male seals. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Smith, if you are familiar with the history of 
the Russian killing and the statements made by Mr. Elliott, are they 
substantiallv correct with reference to the cessation of killing from 
1834 to 1844? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. Whenever indiscriminate killing of fur seals 
has happened, there has been an immediate response on the part of 
the herd. By indiscriminate killing I mean such killing as the Rus- 
sians have done of the females and young males, pups, and old males. 
There was no discrimination. 

There is one other item of loss which the Government will sustain 
in the event of a total suspension of killing on the islands, and that is 
in customs duties. About 85 per cent of the fur-seal skins returned 
to this country after being dyed and otherwise prepared, and they 
would pay a duty of 20 per cent, or, as estimated, $2,550,000. 

The Chairman. During the period of 15 years ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes ; during this period of 15 years. 

Mr. Sharp. But, in that connection, would not the American people 
be paying that duty ? • 

Mr. Smith. The American people are paying the duty anyway,, 
sir. 

Mr. Sharp. And, further than that, are you in a position to answer 
whether it would not be a pretty good thing for us to keep the hides 
in this country and market them here rather than abroad ? 

Mr. Smith. That is another question, sir. There is a tendency or 
desire to bring the sealskins to this country for sale. The only reason 
they have been sold in London heretofore is that London is the recog- 
nized world seal market, and there was fear on the part of the Gov- 
ernment and on the part of furriers that we could not handle the 
business in this country at this time. 



108 PROTECTION OP FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Difenderfer. Is it not a fact also that it is claimed the 
English are the best dyers of sealskins in the world ? Is not that one 
of the reasons? 

Mr. Smith. They are the only people who can handle so large a 
number of seals properly. If we bring this consignment of sealskins 
to this country there is a possibility that the English dyers will come 
over and start business here. That has been suggested. 

There is just one more item, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. The 
loss to the Government in actual revenue, if there was a total cessa- 
tion of land killing on the islands during the next 15 years, would 
be in the neighborhood of $18,250,000, and as against that I do not 
see we get any benefit. The expenses at the islands, the adminis- 
tration of the islands, the feeding of the natives, the care of the seal 
herd, and the patrol will have to go on just the same. 

This was the single thought I had to convey, Mr. Chairman, 
but I would be glad to answer any questions I can, with the under- 
standing that I have never been at the islands, but have been inter- 
ested in this matter officially and personally for many years. 

Mr. Goodwin. As to this cessation of killing, do you not think the 
loss of revenue and the matter of expense would be a mere bagatelle 
as compared with the benefit that would accrue by virtue of the in- 
crease of seals, if Prof. Elliott's theory be correct? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, in a statement I have just published, 
I have ventured the opinion that if not a single surplus or other male 
seal is killed on the seal islands in the next 15 years, there will not 
result a single addition to the herd in consequence thereof. 

Mr. Goodwin. But I thought you said, just now, you had no reason 
to doubt the estimates made by Prof. Elliott and his conclusions as 
to the number of seals that would be on the islands at the end of this 
period. 

Mr. Smith. That would result from the protection of the female 
life. The destruction of females is recognized by everyone now as 
the sole cause of the decline of the seal herds. 

Mr. Foster. That is, you say we could continue this killing of 
the extra or superfluous males, and this increase which Prof. Elliott 
has spoken of would not be an exaggerated estimate ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, there is another phase of this 
matter I would like to bring to your attention. If we do not kill any 
surplus male seals on the seal islands during the next 15 years, dur- 
ing the existence of this treaty, it seems to me it will be an evidence 
of very bad faith on the part of our Government with reference to 
the other Governments who have gone into this treaty, and two of 
which, having fur-seal herds of their, own, expect to kill their sur- 
plus male seals, and if at the expiration of this 15-year period we 
have killed no seals on land, there is every reason to believe that 
those Governments will allow this treaty to lapse, and there will be a 
great carnival of pelagic sealing. The other Governments will reap 
the benefit and we will have gotten nothing whatever therefrom. 

Mr. Sharp. In what respect is that true? I ask for information, 
because I want to get your idea of it. 

Mr. Smith. The nations which have gone into this treaty have done 
so with the understanding that it is pelagic sealing which has caused 
the decrease of the seal herd, plus indiscriminate raiding by Ameri- 
cans and Japanese and British on the land. But it may be said that 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 109 

pelagic sealing is the recognized cause of the present condition of the 
herd. ' Now, there is no reason why, pelagic sealing having been 
stopped, the females being absolutely protected both at sea and on 
land, the surplus males should not be killed, and the other Govern- 
ments who are parties to this treaty have gone into the agreement 
with that Understanding. 

Mr. Cooper. Is there anything in the treaty to that effect ? 

The Chairman. Yes. And they also get part of the revenue ? 

Mr. Smith. The mere fact they have gone into the treaty is evi- 
dence of that. 

The Chairman. The point is, Mr. Smith, that under the terms of 
the treaty some of these other Governments expect to get part of the 
pelts or a part of the revenue from the sale of the pelts ? 

Mr. Smith. Just as we expect to get part of the revenue from the 
surplus male seals killed on the Eussian and Japanese islands. 

Mr. Garner. But they leave the matter entirely with the United 
States as to the number they shall take, if any ? 

Mr. Smith. Naturally, because no one knows what the increase 
will be. 

Mr. Garner. Really, the only issue, if I may term it so, between 
you and Prof. Elliott is the question whether or not this herd will 
be as well preserved by a continuation of the killing of superfluous 
males, as contended by you, or whether we shall let nature work its 
own law by the survival of the fittest, as contended by Prof. Elliott. 
That is about the only issue between you, outside of the criticism of 
the official action made by Prof. Elliott and the question of addi- 
tional expense? 

Mr. Smith. Well, I think that is a very crucial point of difference. 

Mr. Garner. Yes ; I think so myself. 

Mr. Goodwin. Do you not think nature would work its own re- 
demption better than any artificiality of man, if I may use that term? 

Mr. Smith. I think if there are no male seals killed on the islands 
there will be just as many breeding cows at the end of the 15-year 
period, and no more, as there would be if judicious killing on land 
were continued. 

Mr. Difenderfer. If we should take three-fourths of the male 
seals, would the result be the same ? 

Mr. Smith. More than that; if we should take 90 per cent of the 
male seals it would be the same. 

Mr. Sharp. Then, there is nothing in the argument of Prof. 
Elliott that natural selection has a decided advantage ? 

Mr. Smith. There is not anything to sustain that argument. In 
fact, when a large number of breeding bulls are allowed to harass 
the bulls which have secured harems, the others having none, and 
are continuously attacking him from all sides, during a long season, 
I should be inclined to suspect it would be the survival of the un- 
fittest that would result. No bull, however fit, can for a period of 
three or four months, during which time he takes no food whatever, 
sustain himself against the attacks of rival bulls. 

Mr. Sharp. But after all, is not that the way that it has gone on 
for ages before man came on the scene to regulate the number of 
seals ? 

Mr. Smith. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Sharp. Is not that the way ordained in the first place? 



HO PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Smith. Undoubtedly that fighting has gone on. 

Mr. Sharp. And produced millions of them? 

Mr. Smith. But we are dealing with a condition that is not natu- 
ral now. 

Mr. Sharp. Who has made it unnatural ? 

Mr. Smith. The presence of man on the scene, and the necessity 
for protecting these herds, and the desirability of utilizing the herds 
to the best advantage of mankind. 

Mr. Cooper. How do you account for the increase in the herds 
after the cessation of killing by the Russians? 

Mr. Smith. The Eussians were killing female seals. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, that is not true. 

Mr. Cooper. What authority have you for that statement ? 

Mr. Smith. The statement of the authorities themselves, which I 
can easily bring to the attention of the committee. 

Mr. Cooper. You have not those statements with you now ? 

Mr. Smith. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Cooper. I would like to see them, because we want to get at 
the facts. Your idea is, then, that if these seals were left alone for 
15 years — supposing there are 50,000 of them now— at the end of 
that time there would be no more seals on the islands ? 

Mr. Smith. There would be no more seals produced on the islands 
for the reason that there is now, and has been for all time, sufficient 
male seals for all the females that are there. For 50, 40, or 30 male 
seals born, 49 or 39 or 29 are surplus. To be on the safe side, you 
can say that 29 out of every 30 are unnecessary for reproductive pur- 
poses. 

Mr. Elliott. Then why are they born ? 

Mr. Foster. That is not a question for us to consider. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have read over the bill now before 
the committee ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; I know the provisions of the bill. 

The Chairman. In your opinion, do you think this bill will carry 
into effect the terms of the treaty ? 

Mr. Smith. I think it will carry out to an admirable degree the 
intentions and provisions of the treaty. 

The Chairman. If the Congress should determine at some time in 
the future to cease killing the surplus male seals on the seal islands, 
would it not be better to do that by an amendment to the law than to 
do it in this bill, which is simply for the purpose of carrying the 
terms of the treaty into effect ? 

Mr. Smith. If under the operations of this treaty and the author- 
ity vested in the Department of Commerce and Labor by existing law 
it is found that the seal herd is being abused — not administered in 
a proper way — then it will be eminently proper for Congress to enact 
legislation which will correct those abuses. 

The Chairman. Which should be enacted as an amendment to the 
existing law ? 
Mr. Smith. Precisely. 

The Chairman. And would not come before this committee at all, 
but would go before another committee of the House of Represen- 
tatives ? 

Mr. Smith. This matter of stopping land killing altogether is 
something this treaty has nothing to do with. 



PROTECTION" OP PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. HI 

Mr. Foster. That is purely a domestic question, and the question 
we are trying to deal with here is an international question. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sulzer. Quite so. 

Mr. Garner. Now, Mr. Smith, the Treasury Department, through 
its revenue cutters, has something to do toward patrolling the water 
and otherwise enforcing the navigation laws in regard to fur sealing, 
has it not? 

Mr. Smith. The Secretary of the Treasury has detailed revenue 
cutters every year for a long time to patrol these waters. 

Mr. Garner. And to look out in that section for violations of the 
treaty and the laws under the treaty ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garner. Would it be any more expensive or would it be as 
expensive for the Treasury Department to carry out the provisions 
of this bill rather than the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
in as much as they necessarily have to assign revenue cutters and 
enforce navigation laws and to protect the enforcement of the laws 
in that territory ? 

Mr. Smith. I do not see how the Treasury Department is qualified, 
with its present personnel, to deal with the economic question involved 
in the administration of the seal herd. One claim made in past 
years, and a claim that was evidently well founded, was that the 
Treasury Department was not able to cope with the situation; and it 
was under the Treasury Department that this tremendous decline in 
the herd occurred. 

Mr. Cooper. Was that owing to the bad administration of the 
Treasury Department or because there was not a statute to stop 
pelagic sealing? 

Mr. Smith. The cause of the decrease has already been set forth; 
but the Treasury Department, so far as I am aware, never claimed 
to exercise a consecutive, scientific supervision of the herd, such as 
recent events have shown to be necessarj^. 

In further answer to your question, Mr. Garner, I would say that 
the Navy will undoubtedly take part in the patrol to carry out the 
provisions of this treaty, and a naval officer will be in command of 
the patrol fleet. Why not put the control of the seal islands under 
the Navy? 

Capt. Bertholf. You can rest assured that that will not happen. 
The Navy Department will not have control of the Revenue Cutter 
fleet. 

Mr. Smith. But it would have control of a patroling fleet. 

Capt. Bertholf. I doubt it. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Smith, I will state very candidly the reason I 
ask you this question. I have had occasion recently to look into the 
enforcement of the navigation laws. It is now the actual practice 
for reports as to violations of the navigation laws to be made by 
the Treasury Department, and then the Department of Commerce 
and Labor takes that evidence and assesses a fine and undertakes to 
enforce the law. In other words, after one department has assumed 
the duty of reporting a violation of the law, another department of 
the Government comes along and enforces the law. It does not seem 
to me that is good administration. One department or the other 
ought to have entire control of it, and it did strike me that, so far as 



112 PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

the enforcement of the navigation laws is concerned, the Treasury 
Department ought to have that entirely in its charge. And I may 
add here that I am inclined to believe the reason why it was trans- 
ferred to the Department of Labor at the time was the fact that 
when that Cabinet office was created they did not have very much 
to do, and in an effort to get something for them to do this work 
was transferred to them. 

Mr. Smith. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the transfer 
of the fur-seal service to the Bureau of Fisheries was over the pro- 
test of the commissioner. So that we have not come into this trouble 
voluntarily. It has been forced on us. 

Mr. Garner. I do not know that my theory of transferring the en- 
forcement of the navigation laws would apply to the seal fisheries. I 
am simply drawing attention to it to see if it could not be done more 
economically and quite as efficiently in the Treasury Department 
as in the Department of Commerce and Labor. 

Mr. Smith. The patrol of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea 
does not involve any relations whatever with the seal islands. The 
land work and the patrol work in the interests of the life while at sea 
are entirely different questions. 

The Chairman. Is that all you desire to say, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Smith. That is all I have to say, sir. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF ME. W. I. LEMBKEY. 

Mr. Lembkby. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of a few 
minutes of the committee's time to make a brief statement? 

The Chairman. Certainly, Mr. Lembkey. 

Mr. Lembkey. I desire to submit a very brief statement in con- 
nection with the question of the diminution of these seals under the 
Russian regime. 

A great deal has been said by Mr. Elliott before this committee 
and elsewhere upon the subject of the diminution of the Alaskan 
seals during the Russian occupation, and references have repeatedly 
been made to the diminution to show that as land killing was the 
cause of the herd's decline in the period around 1835, so also must the 
decline in recent years be charged to the same cause. Just what effect 
these statements have had upon this committee I am unable to state, 
but as the matter already has been brought before the committee, it 
would seem wise that it should be reverted to for the purpose of put- 
ting the committee in possession of facts which it has not been fur- 
nished with heretofore showing accurately the cause of the Russian 
decline. 

The committee will know that the Pribilof or seal islands were 
discovered in 1786 by a navigator named Pribilof, in the employ of 
one of the rival trading companies then in Alaska. In the following 
year, 1787, not only his company but several others landed killing 
parties of natives on the islands, made settlements, and strove with 
each other in efforts to get the greatest number of sealskins. 

The seal islands were not then a reservation or under any govern- 
ment supervision, so that no restriction whatever was placed upon the 
activity of any company in killing what seals it pleased or any num- 
ber it desired. Their slaughter of seals was heedless and reckless, 
and limited only by the ability of the various companies to preserve 



PROTECTION OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 113- 

the skins taken. For 13 years this destruction of seal life by rival 
companies continued, until in 1799 the companies consolidated into 
the Russian- American Co.. which expelled from the islands all rivals 
not included in the merger. But even then the reckless killing of 
seals did not cease, but continued as before without regard to sex, age, 
or number. 

It was not till 1805, or after 19 years of unlicensed and unrestricted 
killing, that the first action by the Russian Government was taken to 
curtail or in any way regulate this slaughter. In 1805 Rezanof, a 
Russian ambassador to Japan, returning from that country landed 
upon the seal islands, and he was struck at once with the evidence of 
great waste in seal killing, which seems to have been perpetrated upon 
the herd previous to his arrival. He stated that he found the skins 
of seals were scattered about over the beaches in various stages 
of decomposition. The storehouses were full of skins, but only a 
small portion of the contents were in a marketable state. 

He found that at least 30,000 had recently been killed for their 
flesh alone, the skins having been left on the spot or thrown into 
the sea. In his report on the subject, which may be found in H. H. 
Bancroft's Alaska, pages 445-446, he stated that as " over a million 
seals already had been killed " he gave orders to stop the slaughter 
and to employ the natives in gathering walrus ivory instead. In 
Bancroft's Alaska, page 447, we find that the Russian- American Co., 
between 1801-1805, had accumulated 800,000 sealskins, of which 
Venianinof, in Elliott's translation (Seal and Salmon Fisheries, III, 
p. 244) , states that 700,000 had to be thrown into the sea or otherwise 
destroyed. 

This killing which was suspended in 1805 was resumed in 1808 in a 
more moderate degree, and various expedients tried to guard against 
the entire disappearance of seal life, which by that time was threaten- 
ing a wrong, which was the one which Mr. Elliott is now urging, 
namely, the suspension of killing for intervals of years. These 
measures, however, being ineffective, in 1835 all killing was suspended 
except that of pups for natives' food, and what was vastly more of 
importance the principle that females should be exempt from 
slaughter was first recognized and steps taken to prevent their being 
killed on land. With the enforcement of these measures the herd 
gradually increased, so that in 1867 the Russians were able to take the 
skins of 75,000 bachelors or immature males. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Lembkey, in that connection there seems to be a 
difference between you and Prof. Elliott with reference to the policy 
pursued, we might say, from 1854 to 1867 with reference to killing 
the male and female seals. 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garner. What proof have you to submit with reference to 
that policy? 

Mr. Lembkey. I am just about to get to that point, sir. 

Afterwards, during the American occupation, for 20 years, from 
1870 to 1889, 100,000 bachelor seals annually were killed, until the 
herd had again become so greatly lessened through the killing at 
sea of females that the catch receded from 100,000 in 1889 to 12,006 
in 1911. 

The cause of this great decline of seal life during the Russian 
regime was due to the reckless killing on land not only of bachelor 

22875—12 8 



114 PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

seals such as are killed to-day, but to the killing of female seals as 
well wherever they could be found and without regard to the future 
of the herd. And strange to say the very evidence of this wanton 
slaughter of females can be found in Mr. Elliott's reports, although 
he is very careful to keep such facts in abeyance when furnishing 
his deadly parallel of the destruction caused by land killing then 
and now. He would have the committee believe that only bachelors 
were killed then as now and that the continued killing of bachelors 
in the Russian times caused the seals to decrease, just as he would 
have it believe the killing of bachelors to be the cause of the recent 
decrease. Let us, however, make a few quotations from Elliott to 
show just what was the cause of the Russian scarcity of seals. 

We have already called attention to the great waste and ruthless 
slaughter of seals by the Russians. From the early reports there is 
every reason to believe that over 3,000,000 seals were killed on land 
during the 19-year period of 1786-*1805. What kind of seals were 
these ? Let us quote Mr. Elliott : 

A translation of Venianinof, whom I have mentioned already, 
and who was a Russian priest who wrote of the seal islands in about 
1840, if I remember correctly, occurs in Mr. Elliott's monograph, 
his first report on the seal islands. 

Mr. Harrison. When was that report submitted ? 

Mr. Lembkey. That report was made or published first as a mono- 
graph in the Thirteenth Census, I believe, was it not, Mr. Elliott? 

Mr. Elliott. In the Tenth Census. 

Mr. Lembkey. But the data were gathered in his observations — 
at least I take it they were gathered in his observations — between 
1872 and 1874. This translation, as I state, occurs in this monograph 
which was prepared as the result of Mr. Elliott's investigation in 
1872 and 1874. 

In that translation we find the following quotation from the Rus- 
sian writer : 

From the time of the discovery of the Pribilof Islands until 1805 the taking 
of fur seals progressed without count or lists, because there were a number of 
companies, and all of them vied with each other in taking as many as they 
could. 

Then follows the account of the cessation of killing, from 1805 to 
1808. The quotation continues: 

From this time up to 1822 taking fur seals progressed on both islands with- 
out economy, as if there was a race in killing for the most skins. Cows were 
taken in the drive and killed, and were also driven from the rookeries to places 
where they were slaughtered. 

The committee will find that monograph reprinted in a Govern- 
ment publication called Seal and Salmon Fisheries and General Re- 
sources of Alaska, page 232, et seq. 

On page 78 of the publication cited Mr. Elliott states : 

Again, in this connection the natives say that until 1847 the practice on these 
islands was to kill indiscriminately both females and males for skins, but after 
this year, 1847, the strict respect now paid to the breeding seals and exemption 
of all females was enforced for the first time and has continued up to date. 

From the same report of Mr. Elliott is a quotation from Sir George 
Simpson's Overland Journey Around the World in 1841-42, by Sir 
George Simpson, who was the governor in chief of the Hudson Bay 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 115 

Co.'s territories, who, in that journey, landed upon St. Paul Island. 
Mr. Elliott quotes Sir George as follows : 

Some 20 or 30 years ago there was a most wasteful destruction of the seal, 
when young and old, male and female, were indiscriminately knocked on the 
head. This imprudence, as anyone might have expected, proved detrimental in 
two ways. The race was almost extirpated, and the market was glutted to 
such a degree — at the rate for some time of 200,000 skins a year — that the 
prices did not even pay the expense of carriage. 

Mr. Elliott's comment upon this, in part, follows : 

Also, that though the tardy recognition of the fact that females should not be 
slaughtered was made on the Pribilof Islands shortly prior to 1841—42, yet 
suitable management of the business had not been made, inasmuch as all classes 
" as a whole " were driven to the killing grounds. This harassed and dis- 
tressed the females quite as badly as if killed outright. In 1845, the present 
order of explicit nontrespass upon the breeding rookeries was first established, 
and I am sorry that I can not find the name of the intelligent Russian who 
promulgated it, so that it might be known and respected, as it so well deserves. 

The may be found in the publication already cited, volume 3, page 
131. 

Mr. Elliott gives a quotation from a manuscript letter of a Creole, 
Shisemkof, detailing the number of sealskins shipped in 1847, and 
states : 

This is interesting, because it is the record of the first killing on the seal 
islands when the females were entirely exempted from slaughter. 

On page 272 of the same publication Elliott states : 

The perpetual saving of the females was done in 1847 for the first time. 

I might make further quotations from Mr. Elliott's own reports, 
and I could multiply them 

Mr. Sharp (interposing). Is there anything inconsistent in what 
you have read and what Mr. Elliott has said, namely, that he is in 
favor of protecting females? 

Mr. Lembkey. But the main point he has urged before this com- 
mittee and other committees is this deadly parallel between the 
diminution in the Russian times and the diminution during the 
American times; and he has argued, and argued very ingenuously, 
that if the land killing in the Russian times effected a great decrease 
in seal life, so also must the land killing during the American occu- 
pation have caused a diminution in seal life. But he is very careful 
to suppress the most vital fact that the killing during the Russian 
times up to 1847 

Mr. Goodwin (interposing). Land killing or pelagic killing? 

Mr. Lembkey. The land killing in Russian times on the islands up 
to 1847 included females, and that the killing of females on land, I 
will admit, of course, because there was no pelagic sealing at that 
time, was the cause of the herd's decline, just as the pelagic or sea 
killing of females has been the cause of the herd's decline during the 
American occupation. 

Mr. Elliott suppresses that fact, and I wish to call the committee's 
attention to the fact that at other places, and previous to the time 
when Mr. Elliott had gotten to be a professional witness before com- 
mittees, he has stated this true cause and has given it proper effect in 
his reports. 



116 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Garner. Before it passes out of my mind, I did not have the 
opportunity to ask Prof. Elliott at the time, or at least it did not 
occur to me, but I would like to know how long Prof. Elliott was 
in the Government service, with reference to seal matters. 

Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Elliott would perhaps be the most competent 
witness, but I have the fact here. 

Mr. Garner. The question did not occur to me at the time Mr. 
Elliott was making his statement. 

Mr. Elliott. I was there for five consecutive seasons. 

Mr. Garner. In the employ of the Government? 

Mr. Elliott. In the employ of the Government for four seasons. 

Mr. Garner. Has that been the extent of your service with the 
Government, with reference to these seals? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; 1890 was the last season I was there. 

Mr. Lembkey. I am afraid I am involving the committee in a 
discussion that perhaps you might not wish to listen to, but, perhaps, 
since Mr. Elliott has taken the committee's time to make his state- 
ment, I might claim a few minutes more indulgence. 

Further quotations from Mr. Elliott's own reports could be multi- 
plied to show that the killing of the Russians from 1786 until 1835 
included seals of both sexes indiscriminately, that the principle that 
females should be entirely exempt from slaughter was not promul- 
gated until 1835, and that this principle of noninterference with 
breeding seals was not put into effective operation until 1847. How- 
ever, enough has been extracted from Elliott's own reports to show 
the character of the Russian killings. 

We have seen from the quotations given that the Russians, in the 
first 20 years of their tenure of these islands, killed at least over 
3,000,000 seals, male and female, young and old, that the breeding 
seals were driven from the rookeries and slaughtered, and that this 
slaughter continued until the oeals were almost extirpated. But 
what is of greater significance, we can see from the citations that the 
very same cause then operated to decrease seal life as has operated 
to decrease seals during the American occupation. That cause, how- 
ever, is entirely different from the one urged by Mr. Elliott. That 
cause was and is the killing of breeding females. The records show 
that breeding females were slaughtered on land during Russian 
occupation just as they are now being slaughtered in the water, and 
that the seals did not increase in numbers until the Russians began 
to protect the females. Neither will they increase for us until we can 
bring about this same protection to females in the water, the full 
measure of which, in my opinion, is embodied in the bill under 
discussion. 

Mr. Cooper. Why has not that protection been brought about 
long ago, if they knew the killing of the females was the cause of 
this diminution? 

Mr. Lembkey. Simply because the protection could not be brought 
about except through international agreement, and that the efforts 
of the Government since 1889 have not been successful in accom- 
plishing an international agreement until the 12th of July, 1911. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Lembkey, if the Russians believed as you do that 
the killing off of a considerable number of the bull or male seals 
would not have anything to do with diminishing the number, why did 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS- AND SEA OTTER. 117 

they prevent the slaughter of any seals, male or female, during the 
10 years? 

Mr. Lembket. As a matter of fact, they did not prevent the 
slaughtering of any seals. During the year 1835, which Mr. Elliott 
mentioned, while they did kill only 100 bachelor seals for skins, they 
still killed some thousands of pups for food. 

Mr. Sharp. But that was exceptional, as I understand it, and there 
was no killing of male seals the way our Government kills them. 
Why did they not continue to kill a portion of the male seals ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I believe the reason why they did not continue to 
kill bachelors was because in 1835 they had not recognized the vital 
principle that the females should be exempted from slaughter; and, 
if they were, a reasonable number of bachelor seals could be killed 
without injury to the herd. That seems to be apparent from the 
record, for not until 1847 were the females entirely excluded from 
slaughter, according to Mr. Elliott's own figures. 

Mr. Sharp. What is the policy now of the Russian Government 
and Japanese Government toward the male seals ? Are you familiar 
with that ? 

Mr. Lembket. I am not; except within the last 18 months I have 
seen the reports which have just come from the Commander Islands 
from a Russian scientist, I believe he is, or at least some one interested 
in seal life who had been there during the summer, and his statement 
was to the effect that bachelor seals were being killed, as they are on 
the American side, and that females are exempted from slaughter. 
I believe, however, there is an important, or has been an important, 
variation from that principle; that is, at least on certain rookeries 
on the Russian Islands. In order to get bachelor seals they drove 
an entire breeding rookery, and culled out from this mass of cows, 
bulls, and everything such bachelors as they could find therein, releas- 
ing, of course, the breeding seals to go back to their rookery, and 
skinning the bachelors after the cows had gone. Such a practice 
does not obtain on our islands. I remember another thing. They 
were considerably concerned with the decrease in cows, and did not 
know just exactly what to do to reined}^ that evil, and the remedy they 
finally arrived at was the killing off of a large number of adult bulls, 
in order to make the number of bulls conform, in a proportionate 
degree, with the number of cows that were left. I am just quoting 
that from memory and from a report which I read over rather hastily 
about 18 months ago. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Lembkey, have you ever entertained the idea or 
thought that possibly during these years of slaughter, continuing 
over more than a century, many of these seals may have permanently 
left the grounds and gone somewhere else? I think I read in a maga- 
zine or paper some time ago that there was in existence an undis- 
covered herd — that is, some one had run across such a herd — anr] I won- 
dered whether it would be possible that, in the face of all this con- 
tinuous slaughter, these animals would keep returning in full numbers 
to the same place or whether some of them may not have wandered 
away. 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, it would be possible 
for a large herd of fur seals to be in existence without in a very short 
while demonstrating their existence to the navigators who might be 
passing through the waters in which they feed. They would have to 



118 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

show sooner or later in the water, and, of course, would be discovered. 
From my own personal observation I believe there is absolutely 
nothing in these various stories which have been printed quite recently 
to the effect that there are mythical seal herds and mythical seal 
islands and rookeries that are unknown, except perhaps to one man, 
who will disclose that information if he is given a good job, or some- 
thing of that kind; I do not know just exactly what he does want. I 
do not believe there is any hidden seal herd in existence. 

Mr. Levy. You surprised me yesterday by the statement that you 
thought the seals were not intelligent. I was always under the im- 
pression they were very intelligent animals. 

Mr. Lembkey. The fur seal, the one under discussion at the present 
time, is not an intelligent creature. The seals, however, which you 
are accustomed to seeing in the various zoological gardens, and per- 
haps on the stage, if you ever went to see a vaudeville performance, 
is an entirely different seal. That is the harbor seal, or hair seal, and 
has no relation whatever to the fur seal. 

Mr. Levy. The reason I have always had that belief is because my 
father was one of the first ones to bring seals from the South Seas, 
and he used to say they were very intelligent, and I was brought up 
to that belief. That is the reason you surprised me when you made 
that statement yesterday. 

Mr. Lembkey. The killing of seals on their breeding rookeries 
might well be termed slaughter. So far as all the animals are con- 
cerned, except the old bulls, little or no resistance would be offered 
to any attempt to kill them. The old bulls, of course, are interested 
in their particular harem space and would fight anybody who came 
onto that space, but would go no further. 

Mr. Levy. I would like to ask you the method employed in killing 
the seals. Can that be in any way improved upon ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not think so, 

Mr. Levy. How do you kill them ? 

Mr. Lembkey. As I stated yesterday, the hauling grounds are vis- 
ited by adept natives, and these seals are driven back from the water's 
edge and inland toward the killing grounds. After they arrive there 
and are given a sufficient time to rest from their journey they are 
separated into small pods or bunches of seals, from 30 to 60, we will 
say. This small pod is driven away 'from the main drive over to 
the place where they desire to kill the seals. That pod is then sur- 
rounded by a gang of six men, expert clubbers, armed with heavy 
hickory clubs about 5 feet long and having a rather bulbous end 
about 3^ inches thick. 

Mr. Goodwin. Of the big-stick variety like we see in the cartoons ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not exactly like that; the bulb is not quite so ac- 
centuated. The seal which it is desired to kill is struck on the head 
by a single blow and is rendered either immediately unconscious or 
is killed at once and is dragged away from the place where it is killed 
back a few feet and spread out in a position where it may be flip- 
pered or stuck by another gang of men. As soon as it is dead it is 
again taken hold of by another gang of men, who are the most expert 
in the bunch,«called the skinners, and the pelt is removed. I do not see 
how that operation could be improved upon. It has been suggested 
on several occasions that the seals might be shot instead of clubbed. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 119 

If that is done, it would not be healthy either for seals or men to be 
anywhere near the place where this killing is going on. 

The Chairman. Mr. Lembkey, tell us what the}^ do with the 
carcass. 

Mr. Lembkey. The carcasses, of course, form the only fresh-meat 
supply of the natives, and at the present time there are very many 
in excess of the food wants of the native inhabitants. Last year, 
however, through the cooperation of the Interior Department, which 
furnished us a small fund to buy 85 barrels, and through the kindness 
of the Revenue- Cutter Service, which transported those barrels to 
the native villages around the Aleutian chain, we preserved in salt 
over 2,000 carcasses of seals ; put them into the barrels and into about 
100 other barrels we had of our own, and sent them around to the 
destitute natives on the Aleutian chain. Now, if we can get enough 
money to buy about 100 more barrels, we feel we can dispose of the 
entire surplus supply of meat without having any of it go to waste. 
At the present time we would not have enough meat to fill more 
than 100 barrels in addition to what we already have. 

Mr. Harrison. Do storms or unusual disturbances in the water 
ever cause the death of these seals ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not believe any storm could raise a sea of 
sufficient violence to kill a fur seal, because a fur seal is such an 
expert swimmer it can handle itself in almost any condition of rough 
water. It may be possible when the seal is quite young it might 
venture into the surf and be dashed up against a cliff. However, I 
have never seen a seal killed by that means, and therefore do not 
believe that any rough weather in the sea, either about the islands 
or elsewhere, would cause the death of any of these animals. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is the whale destructive to the seals at any age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir; the killerwhale is. In the spring and 
in the fall a few killerwhales — I say a few because I have seen only 
a few during my 13 years' experience — visit the islands and feed 
for a period of a week or perhaps more upon seals which are swim- 
ming about in front of their respective rookeries. The killerwhale 
comes along close to shore, swimming through a bunch of seals and 
snatching impartially at any seal that happens to be close to him, 
and continues his course until he is either tired or full, I do not 
know which. They cause a decrease in seals, of course, to the extent 
of those which they kill. 

The Chairman. But a very few of them are killed in that way ? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not believe a great many are killed in that 
way. 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Lembkey, what do you say about this esti- 
mate Mr. Elliott has submitted here? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have not seen the estimate. I will state that the 
death rate submitted by Mr. Elliott for the young seals, or those be- 
tween puppyhood and 1 year of age, is nearly correct, 30 per cent. 
I have estimated it at between 30 and 50 per cent. I believe 50 per 
cent is a little too large, and I believe 30 per cent is a little too small, 
but the correct death rate, in my opinion, lies between those two fig- 
ures, whatever it may be. The 10 per cent death rate which he 
allows to all classes of seals over 1 year of age is correct. However., 
I can not state as to the correctness of his figures, because I have 
not looked at the table. Of course it would require a careful scru- 



120 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

tiny to tell you whether the computations are correct or not. I do 
not believe, however, we can kill in 15 years — I forget how many 
seals he stated ; but at any rate it was a much larger number than I 
believe we can kill. 

Mr. Harrison. I understood you were killing about 10 per cent. 
Is that the number of bulls the department is killing? 

Mr. Lembkey. No ; the department is reserving about 14 per cent 
of the class of 3-year-old males, and is killing all others of the ages 
of 2 and 3 years that may haul on the islands. Of course, not all 
do come to the islands. But such as do come, after this reservation, 
which is equal to about 14 per cent of the 3-year-old class, would be 
killed. 

Mr. Sharp. How do you tell a 3-year-old seal from a 4-year-old 
seal? 

Mr. Lembkey. A 4-year-old is a little larger and is beginning to 
look more like a bull, and develops a little more hair on his back, and 
his teeth are bigger. 

Mr. Goodwin. And he begins to show a certain degree of white- 
ness ? 

Mr. Lembkey. No; he begins to get darker and lose the infantile 
coat of hair which he had when he was immature. 

Mr. Garner. What is your observation with reference to Prof. 
Elliott's statement about the viciousness of these seals according to 
their age, the bull seals and the pups and the females, and so forth. 

Mr. Lembkey. Well, the rutting bull is a terrific animal. It is 
the fiercest animal I have ever come in contact with. It would 
tear a man to pieces. The other seals are vicious enough when they 
come in contact with you, but they will not attack you, nor are 
they aggressive. If you go among a crowd of female seals, for 
instance, you would probably get your leg torn to pieces, notwith- 
standing the fact that Mr. Elliott says they are docile. They are 
docile among themselves and do not do much fighting among them- 
selves, but, of course, would seriously injure anybody who went 
down into the rookeries. The pups, of course, do not fight very 
much. But if you happened to pick up a pup by the tail he would 
be very apt to bite a piece off your hand. 

Mr. Sharp. Mr. Lembkey, if this bill sustaining this treaty be- 
comes a law, what effect will it probably have upon the number of 
seals that may be killed or slaughtered by the Government, using 
the same proportion that is now employed? Have I made my ques- 
tion clear? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not just exactly gather what you mean. 

Mr. Sharp. Suppose this law becomes effective, will it have any 
effect whatever upon the number of bull seals that the Government 
may slaughter, if it keeps up its present rate — that is, you are 
slaughtering a certain class of seals — will you have more seals there 
for slaughter if they are protected under this bill? 

Mr. Goodwin. You mean, would it rehabilitate the herd? 

Mr. Sharp. Yes ; so you would have so many more seals to kill. 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly. Of course, as has been stated a num- 
ber of times, the increase would result from the cessation of pelagic 
sealing. 

Mr. Sharp. And it would give the Government all the more 
male seals to slaughter, still saving a certain proportion of them? 



PROTECTION OF EUK SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 121 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Sharp. So the natural tendency would be to increase this 
killing ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. Of course, of we continue killing at the same 
rate we do, the catch would be larger each year. That is all I have 
to submit, gentlemen. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF PROF. HENRY W. ELLIOTT, OF 
CLEVELAND, OHIO. 

Mr Elliott. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a few words. 
Mr. Lembkey says I have suppressed certain matters here in regard 
to these Russian translations. I introduced Veniaminov in my mon- 
ograph as the only authority that I can find. I quote him literally, 
but I say that his figures and his conclusions are altogether erroneous. 
t give him credit for being sincere and earnest, but I say, in this re- 
view of his work, that these figures and statements of Bishop Ven- 
iaminov are absolutely valueless. 

I went into this matter of the 700,000 waste skins which I quote 
from the translations, and which George Simpson went into. I 
could not find any count or list of them. It was probably some fig- 
ure of speech passed down which got into the record, but there is no 
backing for it and no record about it. Therefore, I have brought into 
the record to-day the Shaishnikof story of this killing from the day 
his forefathers landed with Pribilof. I have got one of the old men's 
stories right from his lips, the father of whom crawled up the cliffs 
with Pribilof in June, 1786. I put that in to-day. 

Now, in regard to this killing of females, upon which so much 
stress is laid, I have quoted all these statements and have commented 
on them. They did not go into the rookeries, even in the early 
days, but when the breeding system broke up the seals scattered. The 
mother seals that had no pups, the nubiles, ran back over the up- 
lands. -It is true that in August and September they were driven and 
killed. That is true. But they never went onto the breeding rook- 
eries from start to finish. From 1800 until we took possession they 
were superstitiously careful to avoid that. They even put certain 
shoes on when they walked around them and they did not light fires 
when the smoke blew toward them. They were almost absurd in their 
regard for those rookeries. I have explained to-day just how they 
killed the females. They did not kill the primapares and multipares. 
They only killed the nubiles that ran over. Why did they not kill 
the others? Because the pups and their mothers never went into 
the open uplands, but down along by the water's edge, where they 
were safe and not disturbed. 

Do you suppose that the driving of the mother seals and the saving 
of their pups would not have been noticed and made a matter of 
record if they had done that? I have brought out to-day the largest 
killing of female seals. I have stripped the whole thing bare in my 
record to-day. The largest killing of females was perhaps 30 per 
cent of females during August and September, but they never killed 
a great many at any one time. They could not. They air dried 
these skins, and they could not take, when they were at work, 1,000 
skins, where we can now take 10,000 skins, and that made the work 
slow and dragged it all through the year. That is the reason they 



122 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

were working all through the year to get a catch of fifty or sixty 
thousand skins, commencing early in June and not closing until Au- 
gust. We do it now in two weeks and salt them. They had no salt. 
I have explained all that. 

I haye suppressed nothing in that monograph. I have brought 
everything into it I could except these letters, which I did not have 
in shape to put in the monograph. When my monograph was printed 
a great deal was cut out of it which I would gladly have put in, but 
the censor of the Printing Office cut me down to so many pages, and 
I was compelled to eliminate a great deal of this detail. 

Mr. Garner. Professor, if I understood you, you investigated this 
matter in 1872? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. And as I understood you, it was in 1890 when you 
ceased your observations ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. There was an interval there. I went up in 
1872 at the request of the Smithsonian Institution, with the joint 
agreement of the Treasury Department. I wanted to go up there to 
study that life and not to conflict with the officialism up there, and 
that made it necessary for me to go up as a Government officer. 
Therefore an appointment was secured for me as an assistant agent, 
so I could go up there and be an official and yet not be interfered 
with in making my collections ; so I could have my own time and be 
my own master and be subjected to no officialism which would em- 
barrass me. I served in that way during 1872 and 1873. Then I 
came down and surrendered my commission to Secretary Baird and 
told him I did not want to work any more on the islands, but that I 
would like to have a revenue cutter and make a tour of these islands 
to see if there was any ground where seals had heretofore beesn. 
There were rumors and talk about other islands, and I wanted to 
have an examination made of those islands to see if there was any 
trace of any rookeries. 

That was put through in April, 1874, and I was sent up there as 
a special agent and a revenue cutter was put under my orders. I 
went up from Fort Townsend in the United States Revenue-Marine 
cutter Reliance, Capt, Baker, commander. I had an associate with 
me, now Rear Admiral Maynard, who was to make an independent 
report of these seal islands. We spent the summer there. We went 
to the seal islands and then visited St. Matthew and St. Lawrence, 
and settled this question in our own minds as to outlying seal islands. 
I then surrendered my commission and resumed my other business. 
Then, in 1890, there was great competition and fierce stress among 
the bidders here for the new lease. There were eight or nine differ- 
ent companies, the company which had the old lease and seven or 
eight or nine others; and in the stress of that competition it ap- 
peared that the agent in charge of the seal islands, a Mr. Goff, had 
reported to Secretary Windom he did not believe under a new lease 
100,000 seals should be allowed, because he had noticed in the sum- 
mer of 1889 that the lessees, the last year they worked, had been put 
to great effort to get their 100,000 which they were allowed. He 
said if they were to do the same thing over in 1890 they could not 
get them, and he fixed a maximum for the new lease of 60,000. 

When Mr. Windom got out his bids in December, 1889, there was 
a great outcry raised by the competing bidders saying that Goff 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 123 

was a tool in the employ of the old company and engaged in depre- 
dating the value of that property so that the new bidders would not 
have a chance. They loudly denounced his statement, and wanted 
Mr. Windom to relet it on a basis of 100,000. Mr. Windom was 
driven and pushed and hauled about over the matter, and finally 
sent for me and asked me what I thought of it. I had not anything 
more to do with that thing than you had. I told him if that agent 
had reported there were only 60,000 seals available for the new 
lease that something very wrong was at work up there, but what 
it was I did not know ; that I had not been there for 16 years. He 
said: " I would like to have you go up there." I said: "I will not 
go up there as a Treasury agent, because you have got four men up 
there, and if I take the place of one of them it will look like a 
reflection on them." He said : " If I can get a bill through, I will 
send you up;" and I said that I would go, and I went up then as 
I went up in 1874. I started in three weeks after that and finished 
my report and came down in 1890 and laid it before him. I recom- 
mended the elimination of the lessees and a suspension of the killing 
for seven years, and then, when we resumed the killing, to have an 
agreement with Great Britain for proper killing in the future. It 
was all with Great Britain at that time. In other words, 20 years 
ago I drew a bill which was passed here in March, 1910, almost 
exactly similar, getting rid of the lessees. 

Mr. Cooper. In March, 1910 ? 

Mr. Garner. He says he drew it in 1890. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garner. Virtually the same bill as passed in 1910 ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. But. the minute this thing was brought out; 
the lessees and all hands combined, and they jumped on me and sup- 
pressed me. I was willing to be suppressed. I did not pretend to 
know it all. I was willing Mr. Blaine should go on to Paris and try 
these cases. But good lawyers thought they were entirely mis- 
taken and would fail, but I washed my hands of it. I retired from 
it. I said, "All right, gentlemen, you may succeed; but my best 
advice to you is to drop it and drop all these claims of jurisdiction; 
all this claim that you have a property right there. Drop your 
absurd proposition of a 60-mile zone around there, and go in for 
a closed time with these powers." Logical events have justified me, 
I did not know it then. I made them no trouble. They went over to 
their defeat without any edging on by me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, is there a bill pending in Congress to 
prohibit the killing of all seals on the Pribilof Islands? 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, I do not know of anything like that. 

The Chairman. You do not know of such a bill ? 

Mr. Elliott. If there is, I do not know of it. 

The Chairman. Under the present law the Secretary of the De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor has discretion as to just how many 
surplus male seals can be killed each year ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. That bill was brought into the Senate, not at 
the instance of Secretary Nagel; that bill was brought in over the 
opposition of his assistants here, who tried to defeat the Dixon reso- 
lution, upon which it was based, which prevented them from kill- 
ing for 10 years and prevented the renewal of the lease. When we 
found out that the Bureau of Fisheries was doing all it could to pre- 



124 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

vent the Dixon resolution from being brought up in the Senate, we 
came down here. We had a meeting called of the Senate Committee 
on Conversation of Natural Resources on February 20, the day we 
learned that Mr. Nagel had the papers all ready and was going to 
renew that lease to some other parties or to these parties. 

The Chairman. The leasing has been done aAvay with, and there 
is now a law upon the statute books which gives the Secretary of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor discretion— — 

Mr. Elliott (interposing). Anything he has a mind to. 

The Chairman (continuing). To kill only the surplus male seals. 

Mr. Elliott. He is the judge, too. 

The Chairman. Now, I want to know if there is not a resolution 
or bill pending in the Senate or House to prohibit all killing of seals 
on the Pribilof Islands ? 

Mr. Elliott. If there is, I do not know of it. I consider this bill 
meets the situation. I have not thought of anything else. I do not 
see why we should have anything else. This bill covers the ground 
completely, and in the only way it can be covered. 

Mr. Garner. In other words, Congress passed a law leaving it en- 
tirely discretionary with the Secretary of the Department of Com 7 
merce and Labor how many of these male seals he would kill each 
year ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. He exercised his own judgment as to how many ought 
to be killed? 

Mr. Elliott. And that is what I object to. 

Mr. Garner. That is one more instance of bureaucratic govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Elliott. I object to it, and now is the time for you to settle 
the question as to the future of this life. What you do here will 
mean either its reestablishment or its everlasting extinction. 

Mr. Fairchild. Professor, will you pardon this question, which I 
am asking you for information, and is not meant to imply any reflec- 
tion upon you : I would like to know whom you represent here ? 

Mr. Elliott. Nobody but my knowledge and understanding and 
interest in this life which I have studied so thoroughly. 

Mr. Fairchild. And you have no ulterior motive in coming here ? 

Mr. Elliott. Not the slightest. I want no office and no job. 

Mr. Fairchild. Who defrays all of your expenses? 

Mr. Elliott. My own self. I pay every dollar of my expenses. 

Mr. Fairchild. And this is purely an individual matter which you 
are considering in a philanthropic way ? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. Certain officialism here in the Bureau of Fish- 
eries says I am associated with the Campfire Club of America, and 
that they have put me up to this. They have acted on their own 
initiative and in their own way. I want to give Dr. Hornaday and 
his men credit for moving entirely independent, but we have moved 
along the same lines because we agree, and there are a great many 
big men in scientific circles who agree with us and who do not belong 
to this officialism. 

Mr. Harrison. You are not a member of the Campfire Club ? 
' Mr. Elliott. No, sir ; I have never seen the building or its office 
or met but three of its members in my life that I know of. 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 125 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN. 

Dr. Evermann. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
after I made a few remarks yesterday regarding the killing of the 
surplus males on the islands Mr. Elliott made a reply, and I feel that 
it is worth while for me to extend these remarks and to go a little 
more fully into that proposition than I had an opportunity to do yes- 
terday ; and in doing that I wish to call attention to the opinions of 
practically all — I may say all — of the naturalists of America and of 
England who have ever visited our seal islands and have expressed 
an opinion upon this question of land killing. 

Before doing that I wish to touch briefly upon a few points inde- 
pendently. In the first place, as to the futility of the method which 
the Government agents have employed in reserving breeding males 
upon the islands. Mr. Elliott would have you believe that that reser- 
vation of breeding seals results in no good; that it is of no value 
whatever ; that it does not tend in any way to supply virile breeding 
males for the herd. Now, the method is this: In the first place, 
female seals are never killed on the islands and have never been un- 
der Government administration, knowingly. Now and then a female 
may be killed accidentally. In the second place, pups are not killed. 

During the last several years the seals which have been killed 
have been exclusively confined to these classes, seals whose pelts when 
removed from the body were not less than 5 pounds and not more 
than 8J pounds. That was believed to cover the seals whose ages 
are 2 or 3 years. The minimum weight excludes those less than 
2 years old, and the maximum weight excludes those which have 
reached the age of 4 years. Now, before the killing begins, when 
the bachelor seals, as these young males are called, begin to ar- 
rive, it is the custom of the agents to select out from these early 
arriving bachelors 2,000 of the finest, largest, best, and strongest 
which they can find. And I submit it to you, if we can not trust 
to the judgment of the four agents on the islands and to the natives, 
who are vitally interested in this question, to select them with judg- 
ment. They have all had some experience in stock breeding. 
They have dealt with this herd of fur seals for many years, 
and I think we should admit that they have some skill and some 
capacity for selecting out from the young seals those which would 
make good breeding males when they reach the breeding age a few 
years later. Now, these 2,000 which they select they mark by clip- 
ping the hair from the crown of the head, and to an extent which 
enables those seals to be distinguished throughout the killing season, 
June and July. Whenever any of those marked seals appear in 
any of the drives, those seals are turned out and allowed to escape. 

So that up to the 1st of August there is no question about the fact 
of the escape of those marked seals, which have been marked for 
reservation for breeding purposes. Now, it is true that in the fall 
some few seals are killed for food for the natives, but the regulations 
and practices are such that those marked seals escape. They run 
no more danger then than during the regular killing season of June 
and July, because the killing for food purposes is limited to seals 
whose skins would weigh less than 6| pounds. That will allow to 
escape certainly all of those which are 3 years old, and those 
which have been marked as 3-year-old seals. There is no danger of 



126 PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

any of them being killed, and the mark on most of them will con- 
tinue to show, which will be an additional safeguard or indication 
that they should be preserved. Now, while 2,000 young, strong, vig- 
orous males are reserved for breeding purposes, that number is 
greatly in excess of the actual needs of the herd. For the last sev- 
eral years the total number of males needed to pass over into the 
breeding age each year was less than 800, but we reserved 2,000. 

Now, I submit to you if that number, 2,000, is not sufficient, when 
selected as they have been selected, because of their larger size, and all 
that; if that is not a sufficient indication that something is done in 
the way of selective breeding on the seal islands. Is it not true that 
the first fur seals to arrive in the spring are those which are strongest 
and the most vigorous ? They are the ones that get there first. They 
are the ones, the 1, 2, and 3 year old seals, which have the most 
strength, and are the best developed for their ages, and they are the 
ones which will be the strongest finally and which will be the best 
ones to preserve, and those are the ones which are preserved. Now, I 
can not see a particle of difference between that method of reservation 
and the method which would be employed by a stockman on a ranch. 
He selects out a sufficient number of males for breeding purposes. Of 
course, if he is conducting his stock ranch on a large scale, some of 
those males will die within the following two or three years, but 
nevertheless he has selected them as wisely as he can. He has re- 
served the best animals he can for breeding purposes, and we are 
doing exactly the same thing. There will be some loss in either case ; 
but suppose you reserve 2,000 and, say, 500 or even 1,000 of them die 
or are killed before they reach the breeding stage, the 1,500 or the 
1,000 that do reach the breeding stage are seals which have been se- 
lected because of their specially strong points. 

So I can not see a whit's difference between that method and the 
method to be employed by a stockman anywhere on a ranch. It is 
particularly like the method which would be employed by a cattleman 
on the plains in the West. During a large part of the year the cattle 
are not under his control, any more than the fur seals are under our 
control, and he pays little attention to them. In a sense, they are 
wild, but they are in his hands when he selects his breeders, just as 
these seals are in our hands when we select the breeders. 

Now, as to whether the killing of male seals on land has been the 
cause of the decrease of the herd or the killing of males and females, 
and eight females for every one male in the water, has been the cause 
of the decrease of the herd, let me call attention to these figures, con- 
trasting the pelagic kill and the land kill. Starting with 1890 and 
from that year up to 1896, for which I have the figures, the pelagic 
catch was 587,088 seals, of which at least 85 per cent were females. 
The land catch for the same years was 116,776, all of which were 
males, an excess of pelagic killing over land killing for those six 
years of 470,312. Is there any question as to which of those factors 
is the one which has caused the decrease of the seal herd ? 

Mr. Elliott stated that the herd was depleted in 1834 and the Rus- 
sians then instituted a close season when they did no killing what- 
ever. That is true, but he forgets that up to 1847 they killed females 
just as they killed males, and as shown by his own quotations and his 
own translations of Russian records. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 127 

Mr. Cooper. Where did you get those figures about the pelagic 
killing? 

Dr. Evermann. They are compiled and published in the reports 
of the department. 

Mr. Cooper. When these seals were all sold in London, were those 
that were killed by pelagic sealing able to be distinguished ? 

Dr. Evermann. The London markets distinguished them. They 
keep what is called the northwest coast catch or pelagic catch sep- 
arate from the shipment which it receives from the islands. They 
classify them by the localities from which they come, whether they 
are Alaskan or northwest-coast seals. 

Now, so low had the herd become in 1834 that all killing was 
stopped, so Mr. Elliott has told you. I believe he stated the herd 
was about 60,000 in 1834; but, by stopping all killing, by 1844, he 
tells you, the herd had increased so. they could kill 20,000 surplus 
male seals in 1844 — that is to say, 10 years after the cessation of all 
killing. Now, notice what that means. There were 60,000 seals in 
1834, and the herd had doubled, as he said, by 1844 ; and then the size 
of the herd in 1844 was still smaller than the herd is to-day. Our 
herd is in the neighborhood of 135,000 to-day. It would have been 
only 120,000 in 1844. Yet, with a herd smaller than our herd to-day, 
he approves a killing of 20,000 surplus males. But we are not kill- 
ing 20,000 surplus males; we are killing only 12,000 surplus males, 
and next year perhaps that same number, and the next year about 
the same, and a year or two later a few more, and then go on 
increasing until the kill will be what it was in the years past. But 
the vital point about this is that with a herd smaller than the herd 
to-day the Russians killed surplus males to the extent of 20,000, and 
they then went on increasing. If it was proper and right for them 
to kill the surplus males when they had a herd of 120,000 what objec- 
tion is there to our killing the surplus males when we have a herd of 
135,000? 

Now, Mr. Elliott has occupied all sides of all phases of the fur-seal 
question in the last 20 years. He has occupied at one time one side 
of the question and at other times the opposite side of this question. 
Let me quote from a hearing held on September 17, 1888. This 
question was asked of Mr. Elliott : 

Under the system adopted by the Government and the company, do you 
think the full-breeding capacity of the entire herd can be preserved indefinitely? 

That is the vital question before this committee, whether the regu- 
lations and rules and practices of the Government in years past and 
during the past year are such as will secure the full-breeding capacity 
of the herd. 

Mr. Elliott replied : 

Yes, sir. So far as we are concerned, I do not think we are able to cause 
an increase by anything that we can do on the island, because we can not 
cause a greater number of females to be impregnated than are there, and as 
long as that is done, as it has been done and is done now, everything is done 
that can possibly be done. When they leave the island they are the prey of 
certain natural marine enemies, which we can not shield them from. 

Mr. Kendall. What were the years for which you gave the dif- 
ference between pelagic and land killing? 
Dr. Evermann. From 1890 to 1896. \ 
Mr. Kendall. Have you any statistics for any other period? 



128 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Dr. Evermann. Yes ; I can give you statistics for other years, but 
not as complete as those. 

Now, it is claimed by Mr. Elliott that all of the males for the 
next 15 years should be preserved in order that there may be that 
fighting and contest and effort among all of those males which #ill 
be necessary to weed out the inferior males and result in the sur- 
vival of the strongest and most fit males for breeding purposes. If 
that condition is required for 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, when 
can you or anyone say that it will not be required? If it is neces- 
sary for all the males to fight in order to weed out all except the 
most virile ones to-day and to-morrow, will it not be forever so? 

When can you say, " Now, it is not necessary for all to fight ; we 
will let only a portion of them fight " ? The fact is this : That enough 
males have always been preserved or reserved for breeding purposes. 
Every cow on the islands which has reached breeding age has, so far 
as anybody knows, been impregnated and brought forth a pup every 
year. Is there any more evidence necessary to show that there are 
enough breedng bulls on the islands to meet all requirements of the 
situation? There is not a particle of evidence that the herd is de- 
teriorating as to individual strength or fineness. The fur seals of to- 
day, so the London firm says, are just as fine fur seals as they ever 
handled. The skins which go to them this year are better than those 
which they received last year, and those last year were better than 
those received the year before, and so on. So that the fur seal as a 
species is not becoming a weak, small, f urless animal. 

Mr. Goodwin. How do they account for that superiority from year 
to year? 

Dr. Evermann. The reason the skins this year are better than those 
of last year, and last year perhaps better than those the year before, 
is because the herd is smaller than it ever was before and the agents 
are able to select with greater care than they ever were before and 
kill with better results. This year they did not kill quite as many as 
they did the year before, and they killed seals of a little better grade, 
after having reserved the finest ones for breeding purposes. 

The Chairman. Doctor, if it will not interrupt you, I would like 
to call your attention to page 8 of the bill, line 11, after the words 
" the number of," to insert " surplus male fur seals," so that it would 
read "And the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall likewise have 
authority to determine the number of surplus male fur seals." 

Dr. Evermann. There would be no objection to that, Mr. Chair- 
man ; but I do not know whether it would be necessary or not, because 
the existing law says you shall kill nothing but surplus males. How- 
ever, that would not do any harm. 

The Chairman. I understand that that is the existing law, but as 
this is a sort of international law, and in order that the Japanese and 
the Eussians and the English will have no doubt as to what we are 
doing I think we had better put that in this bill. 

Dr. Evermann. I can see no objection to that whatever. 

Mr. Kendall. How many cow seals have you on the islands now ? 

Dr. Evermann. I will have to get the census of the herd as taken 
at the close of the season of 1911. I have not got it complete. But 
for the year 1910, as I have made some argument or discussion upon 
those figures, I will use them if you think that will meet your question. 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 129 

Mr. Kendall. I think so. 

Dr. Evermann. At the end of the killing season of 1910 — that is, 
after the 12,922 surplus male seals were killed — this was the census 
of the herd : Bulls, active with harem, 1,381 ; bulls, idle and quitters, 
303 (those are surplus bulls) ; half bulls, 2,336; 3-year-old bachelors, 
1,200. 

Mr. Cooper. What is a half bull? 

Dr. Evermann. If he had a chance he would be a full bull. He 
has all of the inclination. 

Mr. Cooper. I wanted to know the difference between quitters and 
half bulls. 

Dr. Evermann. There is a few years difference. 

Two-year-old bachelors, 4,500 ; yearling bachelors, 11,441 ; male 
pups, 21,725; breeding cows, 43,450; 2-year-old cows, 12,124 (those 
which have received the bull for the first time) ; yearling females, 
11,441; female pups, 21,725; making a total of 131,626. 

The total number of cows capable of bearing pups in 1911 was 
55,574. To simplify the computation we will allow a mortality of 
5,574 during the year, which leaves us 50,000 productive cows for the 
present season. These will produce 50,000 pups, of which one-half, or 
25,000, will be females and 25,000 will be males. We will, of course, 
save all those female pups for breeders. If every one of them should 
live to be 2 years old there would be needed not to exceed 800 bulls 
to render them efficient service. When only 800 bulls are needed to 
meet the requirements of the increased herd, shall we save all of the 
25,000 young males? Why save 25,000 when 800 are ample? There 
is nothing that would justify such a course. It would be short- 
sighted and wasteful in the extreme. No sane man who understood 
the problem would think of such a course. Evidently the only proper 
course to pursue would be this: 

Save all the females. 

Save enough males to insure proper service for all the females. 

Kill and market all the rest of the young males just as soon as they 
have reached the age of highest commercial value. 

To do otherwise would be unwise for the following reasons : 

(1) Every surplus male that you refrained from killing would in 
five years become a seal possessing no value whatever; he would not 
be needed on the rookeries and his skin would be of no value. 

(2) There would be turned loose on the rookeries thousands of 
bull seals that are not needed in the least, but whose presence on the 
rookeries would result in a great deal of fighting which would result 
in many cows being torn to pieces and hundreds of pups trampled 
to death. 

For the Government to establish now a close season for 15 years 
would be a stupendous blunder which would hamper intelligent and 
scientific study and management of the herd and would cost the 
Government $15,000,000 to $25,000,000, with not a single compensat- 
ing advantage or gain even of trivial importance. 

But permit me to quote the words of several distinguished zoolo- 
gists who have studied the fur-seal herd on the land and in the sea. 

First, I want to quote from Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of 
Stanford University, who was chairman of the Fur- Seal Commission 
of 1896 and 1897, and who has spent many years in studying the fur 
22875—12 9 



130 PROTECTION" OE FUR SEALS AND. SEA OTTER. 

seal, and who, in my judgment, is the greatest authority upon that 
question. He says : 

Owing to the polygamous habit of the fur seals, the greater part of the 
male life born is superfluous for breeding purposes. For the 130,000 breeding 
cows found on the rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands in the season 
of 1897, 4,418 bulls were adequate, or at least out of fully 10,000 adult bulls 
ready and willing to serve harems, only this number were able to obtain them. 
Therefore, only 1 bull in 30 ; s absolutely necessary under present conditions. 
That this limit could be materially lowered without positive danger to the 
herd is conclusively shown by the history of the Russian herd on Bering Island, 
where the observations of the past three years, as detailed by Dr. Stejneger, 
show that a male fur seal is capable of attending to the wants of between 100 
and 200 cows. 

Moreover, the removal of this superfluous male life is not only possible but 
is really beneficial to the herd. As already indicated, the only deaths among 
adult bulls and cows discovered upon the rookeries of the islands resulted from 
the struggles of the bulls among themselves to obtain possession of the cows. 
In the death of young pups also this fighting and struggling of the bulls is a 
small but by no means insignificant cause of loss. In 1896 the great early 
mortality among nursing pups was wrongly ascribed to the trampling of the 
fighting bulls. But while the more complete and satisfactory investigation of 
1897 shows another and more important cause, there still remains a considerable 
loss from this source. This loss is now insignificant compared with what it 
was in the wild state of the herd. When the number of adult males and 
females was practically equal, the destruction both among the cows and 
among the pups must have been enormous. It undoubtedly rivaled the ravages 
of the worm Uncinaria in its destructive work and combined with it to offset 
the natural increase of the herd. 

POSSIBILITY OF OVERKILLING. 

While as a general principal the removal of these superfluous males is bene- 
ficial to the herd, excessive removal would undoubtedly lead to disastrous 
results. The percentage of males required for the needs of propagation is 
small, but it is essential, and if reduced too low or cut off entirely the effect 
must be injurious. 

Mr. Cooper. Does he say that if you kill off all the males 

Dr. Evermann (interposing). If there should be an excessive 
killing of males or a killing of all the males, the results would be 
disastrous. 

Mr. Cooper. I should think so; that is profound. 

Dr. Evermann (reading) : 

Such excessive killiug would be felt in the scarcity of bulls, from which 
eause, through inadequate service, the usual increase of pups would not be 
foorn and the herd must ultimately begin to fail. 

I might explain that just a little. Not all of the males ever haul 
out upon the islands, so it would be impossible for you to kill all 
of the male seals in existence even by killing all of those which you 
eould possibly get hold of on the land. 

Mr. Cooper. I referred to the observation of that scientist, if you 
killed all the bulls it would be disastrous to the herd. 

Dr. Evermann. You did not listen to the rest of the context. 
[Continues reading:] 

It is on this ground that land killing becomes a possible source of danger to 
the herd. 

A HYPOTHETICAL CASE. 

To understand how such killing would act, let us take a hypothetical case. 
If in any given year absolutely every 3-year-old male was killed to fill the 
piota, this would involve the absence of representatives of this class of seals 



PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 131 

from the reserve of bulls for the replenishment of the rookeries in subsequent 
years. It wOuld not affect the breeding bulls, nor the reserve of 4, 5, and 6 
years. These latter would supply the deficiency in the breeding stock caused 
by old age for at least 10 years, and it would take that period at least to show 
the effect of the close killing. If it was not repeated, no influence would be 
felt. The 7-year-old bull of the following year would simply enter the rook- 
eries as a 6-year-old. 

But suppose the killing was continued through a series of years, every 3-year- 
old being killed, the reserve in time would be cut off and the stock of breeding 
bulls would die out. It is impossible to say how long it would take to produce 
this effect, because we do not know the length of the life of the bull. We may 
infer, however, that it is not less than 15 years, and therefore the injurious 
effects of this excessive killing begun in any given year and continued indefi- 
nitely would not be seen within 10 years at least. 

This is only a hypothetical case, but it shows what is meant by too close 
killing of males in filling the quota. The killing of males, which would produce 
immediate and disastrous results, must strike at the adult males. To destroy 
this class or any considerable number of them would at once weaken the herd. 
But there would be no object in such killing, and it has never been thought of. 

SUCH KILLING NOT PRACTICABLE. 

In the hypothetical case above cited we have supposed that every male of a 
given age could be taken. While in theory this is possible, in practice it could 
probably never be done. There are certain hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, 
Zapadni Head, Otter Island, Sivutch Rook, and Southwest Point, from which 
the seals are not and have never been driven. 

Mr. Cooper. Doctor, wilLyou please explain just what you mean 
by a hauling ground? 

Dr. Evermann. The portion of the land upon which the young 
male seals come out, separate and distinct from the breeding grounds, 
where the breeding males and breeding females go. 

Mr. Goodwin. Did you not say it was your opinion that one bull 
was sufficient for about 100 to 200 cows? 

Dr. Evermann. Dr. Stejneger has made that statement in his 
observations of the Russian fur-seal herd, where he spent a number 
of years of study. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is it not a fact that the cows drop their pups from 
about the 10th to the 20th of July ; that all the cows drop their pups 
then? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir; in a very short period of time. 

Mr. Goodwin. How is it possible for one bull to serve 100 to 200 
cows within that short period, because this propagation goes on and 
the cows bear pups, say, the 10th of July of this year and another 
pup about the same time next year ; how could one bull serve so many 
cows in just a few days ? 

Dr. Evermann. I think Mr. Lembkey can give you some figures, the 
result of certain observations which were made on the islands, as 
to the rapidity with which the bulls can serve the cows. 

Mr. Difenderfer. At what age would a bull be considered old — 5 
or 6 years? 

Dr. Evermann. As I said yesterday, no one has ever known abso- 
lutely the age of any seal that was ever on the islands, but ordi- 
narily it is supposed that the male seals which begin to breed are 
about 7 years old. 

Mr. Difenderfer. They would not be considered old, then, at 7 
years ? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir ; they have just reached maturity then. 



132 PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

Mr. Goodwin. I understood Prof. Elliott to say yesterday that 
one bull could not serve more than 25 or 30 cows, and I wanted to 
get a reconciliation of those two different opinions, if possible — 
from 25 to 30 as against 100 to 200. 

Dr. Evermann. This quotation from Dr. Stejneger is simply a 
quotation from him as to the possibilities. He does not recommend 
you should kill the male life down to 1 male for 200 cows. One 
male to about 25 or 30 cows is proper. [Continues reading :] 

The young males frequenting those are left undisturbed, and it is safe to 
suppose that the majority of them pass killable age before the sexual instinct 
draws them to the vicinity of the rookeries from which seals are driven. 
Furthermore, there are always little pods of bachelors in the turns and corners 
of the rookeries which either can not be reached or are too insignificant in 
number to be followed up. 

KILLING OF MALES NOT A FACTOR IN DECLINE. 

When we. consider all these things in connection with the difficulties which 
we have shown to stand in the way even of a deliberate attempt to kill too 
closely, we believe ourselves fully justified in asserting that land killing has 
not, through too close killing of the males, been a factor in the decline of the 
herd. 

Speaking of the impossibility of killing all the seals of any given 
class, Dr. Jordan says : 

Many 3-year-olds at Zapadni evidently escaped killing. They haul in small 
bunches at various inaccessible points. Many are on the headland. 

Without doubt more 3-year-olds escape each year and grow wigs than there 
is needed for purposes of reproduction. These are by no means the smallest or 
weakest. They are at least average animals. Sometimes they escape be- 
cause located in outlying positions; sometimes because they are late arrivals. 

The killing closed this year on July 27 and is never continued later than the 
1st of August. Those arriving after that time are exempt from driving, and as 
killable seals are found to the last it is not reasonable to suppose that some 
arrive after August 1 for the first time. 

There was no land killing (except for natives' food) in 1891, 1892, 
and 1893. The result was very detrimental to the herd, as Dr. Jor- 
dan points out in the following words. 

This is the result of a closed season of three years when there was 
no killing: 

There is an enormous number of idle bulls and half bulls. The interests of 
the herd demand that their number be reduced. The idle bulls simply tear 
each other, steal females, and trample on the pups. Those nearest the rookeries 
crowd upon them and are in turn crowded upon by those behind. 

The greatest trouble occurred at the sand flat where the gulley connects with 
the beach. Only half of this space was occupied by harems, which were 
crowded in a dense mass. The other half was covered with idle bulls, which 
were constantly making inroads upon the harems. When a cow was stolen 
all the bulls were at once in an uproar and began fighting. 

This was one of the evil results of the modus vivendi for which 
Mr. Elliott claims responsibility. Let us hope that the Government 
may never again make the sad mistake of following the recommenda- 
tions of such an unsafe adviser. 

Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, who is now the director of the American 
Museum of Natural History, and who studied the fur-seal herd quite 
carefully as a member of the fur-seal commission of 1896 and 1897, 
has this to say upon this question : 

There is no evidence that killing of males (seals) on land has at any time 
been responsible for the decrease of the fur-seal herd. There should be no 



PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 133 

cessation of killing on land so long as pelagic sealing is being prosecuted by 
British subjects. 

Mr. Cooper. Doctor, allow me to ask you a question right in this 
connection. Dr. Jordan I know, and he is a very able man. But is 
it not a fact that before man had anything to do with those herds, 
there were millions of those seals, notwithstanding this awful fight- 
ing and trampling which he depicts? 

Dr. Evermann. Certainty. 

Mr. Cooper. If they were left alone now would they not do the 
same thing? 

Dr. Evermann. It is also true that before man came in, sweet 
potatoes grew in Peru and wild corn in America, and it reached a 
certain maximum development. But man has come in and the corn 
crop is just a little bigger than it was before man interfered, and the 
potato crop is a little better than it was before, because man has taken 
charge of it. 

Mr. Cooper. Is this your argument, then — that the control by man 
has improved the quality of the individual seal on an average, just 
as it has the potato crop? 

Dr. Evermann. I can not say that the control which man has ex- 
erted has markedly improved the quality of the individual seal, be- 
cause we have not experimented or worked along that line sufficiently 
to know. 

Mr. Cooper. If it has not improved the quality, it has diminished 
the quantity? 

Mr. Foster. But you do not admit it has decreased the quantity, 
do you ? 

Dr. Evermann. You must distinguish between man on the seal 
islands and man killing seals on the open sea. We admit fully and 
frankly that the killing of seals by man in the open sea has been 
detrimental to the herd, but we deny positively, also, that the killing 
of male seals on land by man has had any influence whatever on it. 

Mr. Cooper. Is it your contention that under the plan proposed 
by the bill before the committee, if enacted into law, there will be 
an increase in the size of the herd ? 

Dr. Evermann. There certainly will be, because pelagic sealing 
will have ceased. 

Mr. Foster. Isn't this really the effect of your statement — that in 
the old days there was this great increase in the flock or the herd in 
spite of this killing by the superfluous males, and that if man had 
been there he might have had the benefit of those superfluous males, 
and the increase would have gone on just the same? 

Dr. Evermanx. Certainly. If the Victorian sailing fleet had not 
come in in the late eighties and begun to kill seals in the open sea, 
there is no reason for believing we could not have continued to take 
100,000 surplus male seals on the islands from that day down to this. 

Dr. Lucas, continuing, says: 

If, however, the restriction of land killing will open the way to negotiations 
for the preservation of the seals, such restriction is advisable, provided that 
there is a complete cessation of killing at sea. 

That is not necessary now, because a treaty has been negotiated and 
is now a reality. 

The decrease in the number of rookery bulls while great, need give no cause 
for immediate alarm. The average number of cows to a harem is now about 40, 



134 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

while from 1895 to 1899, when, as a result of cessation of killing during the 
modus vivendi, the rookeries were overrun with bulls, the average number 
of cows in a Li arena was 35. 

Mr. Elliott's statements must be received with caution, but he says that in 
1873 there were from 15 to 20 cows in a harem, which means actually from 
30 to 40, since his figures mean those cows counted at one time. 

Mr. Cooper. As to these harems, do you mean 1 bull to 40 cows? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Cooper. Where are all these other bulls? 

Dr. Evermann. The surplus bulls? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Dr. Evermann. They are on a line just back of the harem and 
doing the best they can to steal some of the cows from these more 
fortunate bulls. 

Mr. Cooper. What I want to know is whether they are isolated, 
the 30 or 40 cows and the 1 bull ? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes; they are pretty well rounded up. 

Mr. Difenderfer. Those are what you call the bachelor bulls that 
herd in certain sections and are segregated? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir ; the bachelor bulls herd together, but they 
have no harems; and the half bulls and some bulls that are not quite 
as strong as some others are always trying to get on to the rookeries. 

Mr. Cooper. What are the rookeries? 

Dr. Evermann. I have tried to make this distinction: The hauling 
ground is the place where the nonbreeding seals are and the rookery 
is the place where the breeding seals are. 

Mr. Foster. And this bull with his harem protects the pups when 
the females are at sea? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir; he does not give them any protection 
whatever. All he cares for is to keep the females in his possession 
until they have been served. 

Mr. Foster. Do the pups belonging to one harem herd together? 

Dr. Evermann. They will stay approximately in their own local- 
ity for a time, but as they get a little older they scatter about. 

Mr. Cooper. Doctor, I am hardly able to reconcile that isolation 
of the one bull with his harem with the statement that there are a 
lot of other anxious bulls looking around, and the one bull keeps 
track of 40 cows without any trouble and keeps the other bulls out. 

Dr. Evermann. No ; not without any trouble. There is a great 
deal of trouble, and he sometimes loses. 

Mr. Goodwin. Is one bull strong enough and big enough and 
potential enough to keep out all the other bulls that are hanging 
around ? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir; the integrity of the family gets broken 
up every now and then; that is, a bull back of the regular rookery 
line watches his chance, and sneaks a cow from the harem, and 
after he gets her he would probably be able to retain her and maybe 
get another and another, and that is the way the harems farther 
back are filled up. [Continues reading:] 

It is to be remembered that for many years there was a superabundance of 
bulls and half-bulls owing to the pernicious effects of the restricted killing 
during the modus vivendi, which not only .caused a loss in the number of 
skins taken, but an undesirable increase in the number of bulls about the 
breeding grounds. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 135 

The positive increase in the number of female seals in spite of the con- 
tinuance of pelagic sealing is conclusive evidence that there has been no dearth 
of male seals. It is even possible that a year or two may show an increase 
in the number of bulls, for while the females appear on the rookery grounds 
at the age of 3 years to bring forth their first young, the males, under ordinary 
circumstances, would not appear until three to five years later. 

The presence of idle, seemingly inactive bulls on the breeding grounds is 
not alarming. If these bulls had no business there, they would not haul out. 
A great deal was said about close killing " somnolent bulls " and " barren cows " 
in 1S90, but the seal herd did not die out on that account. On the contrary, 
since closer killing has been carried on there has been an increase in the seals, 
while from 1S93 to 1899, when the males were most abundant, the seal herd 
steadily decreased from pelagic sealing. 

Should the department feel that it is preferable to avoid even the least ap- 
pearance of not having taken proper measures for the preservation of the seal 
herd, it is only necessary to order the release for one season of all the large 
seals that make their appearance in the drives, as the effects of such action 
would be felt in two or three years. Releasing the smaller seals would not 
effect the desired result, since they would have to run the gantlet of the drives 
and of the natural death rate for several years before reaching maturity. 

Attention is called to the frequent statements that the animals selected for 
killing are those most likely to develop into good rookery bulls, when quite the 
reverse is true, the animals most likely to be rejected being the large seals. 

It is also to be noted that while some bachelors appear several times in the 
drives there are many others which do not appear at all. 

Now Dr. Stejneger, who is head curator of biology, United States 
National Museum, and who has spent a number of years on the Rus- 
sian seal islands continuously, and who was a member of the Fur 
Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, and who is one of the most dis- 
tinguished naturalists in the world, says this: 

It was the unanimous opinion of the American-British Commission (Dr. 
D. S. Jordan, F. A. Lucas, L. Stejneger, Prof. d'Arcy W. Thompson, J. M. Macoun, 
and G. E. H. Barrett-Hamilton) that the proportion of 1 bull to 30 cows was 
so excessive that a number of bulls were ordered killed off. The islands are at 
present (1897) grossly overstocked with bulls, and yet the average size of the 
harem is about 30 cows. (Treasury Doc. 1994, p. 22.) 

The present ratio of 1 to 40 is consequently a great improvement and, even 
if it should fall as low as 1 to 50, or even 1 to 60, as it may in 1905, no alarm 
need be felt, as 1 bull to 50 cows is probably the most satisfactory ratio to 
be had. 

That close killing of males on land may have had an influence is utterly 
denied. The whole reasoning involved in such an explanation rests upon the 
fallacy of the assumption that all the male seals " haul out " on land each 
year. If all the seals " hauled out " and the killing were as close as alleged, 
there would be nothing but yearlings the next year, and we know, of course, 
that such is not the case. I need not enlarge upon this theme here, but will 
only quote the expert commission of 1896-97 to the following effect : " It is, 
indeed, to be doubted whether at any time the killing on the islands could by 
any possibility be made close enough to endanger the supply of bulls, etc." 

One of the British commissioners, Mr. Barrett-Hamilton, who in his report 
for 1S96 held similar views with regard to the scarcity of bulls on North 
Rookery, Bering Island, abandoned them later after his additional experience 
of 1897. 

From what I have stated above it will be seen that I regard the status of 
the fur-seal herd on the Pribilof Islands to be as satisfactory as under the 
present circumstances (i. e., continued, though diminishing, pelagic sealing) it 
could possibly be. My own policy, therefore, would be to let well enough alone. 

I realize, however, that the department may wish to be " on the safe side," 
and in that case I can see no special reason why the general agent of thei 
islands should not be instructed to see to it that of the older bachelor seals a 
number satisfactory to him be exempt from being killed in the drives. 

On the other hand there should be no restriction as to the killing of the 
smaller bachelor seals. Only a minor proportion of these " haul out," and the 
only result of their killing is that the company anticipates part of next year's 



136 PROTECTION OF PUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

catch and gets smaller skins than it otherwise would. It should, therefore, be 
left entirely to the company to decide how small skins they want to take, as the 
company itself will be the only sufferer. 

That has been done. 

The taking of these young bachelors can not, by any possibility, affect the 
status of the herd, and from the standpoint of the Government must be regarded 
as desirable, in so much as there will be that many seals less for the pelagic 
sealers to prey upon. The company therefore might properly be encouraged to 
take as many yearling males as they can. * * * From what I have explained 
in the two foregoing chapters, it may be inferred that I am opposed to any stop- 
page of the killing of seals on land. 

The company has now been eliminated, and the Government will 
kill those skins which possess the highest commercial value at that 
particular time. 

Dr. F. W. True, who is Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institute, and who was a special investigator on the seal islands in 
1895, has written a number of pages here to the same effect, but I 
will not bother to read them. 

The Chairman. Doctor, I wish you would put all of those state- 
ments in the record. 

Dr. Evermann. I thank you, sir. There are still some other 
authorities here regarding the same question. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Doctor, may I ask you a question ? In this pelagic 
killing, what was the percentage of females and males ? 

Dr. Evermann. Mr. George Rice, who handles all the fur-seal 
skins in London, furnished an affidavit to this country some little 
time ago to the effect that his observation and examination of the 
sealskins which passed through his hands led him to the positive 
belief that at least 85 per cent of the seals killed in the open sea were 
females. And bear in mind that that means not only 85 per cent, but 
suppose 100,000 seals were killed, that means not only 85,000 females, 
but 85,000 unborn pups, and 85,000 pups on the islands to starve to 
death. Now, can you bring any land killing of males that will for a 
moment be comparable in disastrous effects with such a course 
as that? 

Mr. Bartholdt. Do you think that the passage of this bill will 
stop the killing of the females altogether? 

Dr. Evermann. The treaty will do that. The treaty will stop 
all pelagic sealing so far as possible under the control of these four 
great nations; and the Government will never, as it never has, kill 
females on the island. So all the females will be saved from now on, 
and there will always be a sufficient number of males from now on, 
in my judgment. 

I will not read the opinions of these other gentlemen, but I will 
simply read their names and submit their statements for the record. 

Mr. Cooper. Doctor, how many cows are there now? 

Dr. Evermann. The census of 1910 gave about 50,000. 

Mr. Cooper. How many bulls ? 

Dr. Evermann. There were 43,450 breeding cows and there were 
12,124 three-year-old cows ; that is, seals who for the first time would 
receive the bull that summer, 1910, and whose first pup will be born 
this year, 1911. 

Mr. Cooper. There were in the neighborhood of 50,000 cows, and 
how many bulls? 



PROTECTION" OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 137 

Dr. Evermann. There were 1,381 active bulls with harems; 303 
idle bulls and quitters; 2,336 half bulls; and so on. 

Mr. Cooper. If they have been killing 85 per cent of the females 
at sea in this pelagic sealing, how is it there still remains such a 
very large proportion of cows as compared with bulls ? 

Dr. Evermann. You will have to suppose, as Mr. Elliott has 
stated, a herd of several million seals a good many years ago. 

Mr. Cooper. As I understood it, the cows and bulls then were 
about 1 to 1 or about 25 to 25, and if they have been killing 85 per 
cent of the cows, how is it that the cows still are largely in excess of 
the bulls? 

Dr. Evermann. The killing of the cows has gone on only in the 
water, and the killing of males has gone on in the water and on land 
both. 

Mr. Cooper. If half of those in the water are bulls and half of 
them cowSj why should they kill the cows? 

Dr. Evermann. There are a great many more cows in the water 
than bulls. 

Mr. Kendall. The bulls are not in the water at all from May to 
November ? 

Dr. Evermann. That is true. The killing of the female takes 
place very largely during the season when the females have gone out 
from the islands to feed, and, of course, the percentage of seals in 
the water at that time is largely female rather than male. You 
understand that the old males do not leave the islands at all. 

Mr. Goodwin. Still the estimates that are made of the number of 
seals still alive show a great percentage of the females over the males 
both on land and sea. How does it happen that there is such a 
greater number of females than males when 85 per cent of pelagic 
sealing consists of killing females? 

Dr. Evermann. This statement by Mr. Rice was made, I think, in 
about 1896. I am not sure of the year, but it was in the nineties, 
when pelagic sealing was at its height, and when there was a larger 
number of cows, doubtless, than there is at the present time. 

Mr. Harrison. Doctor, how far do the cows go out to sea ? 

Dr. Evermann. I understand from 60 to 150 or even 200 miles. 

Mr. Difenderfer. And during the mating season the bulls do not 
feed at all? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir. 

Mr. Difenderfer. And that is a period of three or four months? 

Dr. Evermann. Several months; from early spring until late in 
the fall. 

Additional opinions along the same line and the same tenor I might 
read from Mr. Joseph Stanley Brown, who was the Treasury agent 
on the islands and later an agent for the North American Commer- 
cial Co. 

The Chairman. That all appears in the memorandum which you 
have there? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If you will give the memorandum to the reporter 
he will put it in the record. 

Dr. Evermann. Very well, sir. I simply want to say that this 
memorandum contains opinions by Barrett-Hamilton, British mem- 



138 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

ber of the Fur-Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, and Dr. Charles 
H. Townsend, who has been on the island many times and has spent 
many j^ears in the study of fur seals, and one or two others. 

The only critics of the Government's policy regarding the admin- 
istration of the fur-seal service are our friend, Mr. Elliott, and one 
or two others who have received their data from him. Mr. Elliott is 
the only one of them who has been on the seal islands, and he has not 
been there since 1890. Mr. Lembkey has been there 13 years; all of 
several of those years and every season for the last 13 years; and 
every naturalist who has been on the seal islands subscribes to the 
Government's policy, without exception. 

Mr. Goodwin. Just before Prof. Elliott concluded this afternoon 
he said that his opinion was also entertained by other scientists and 
other naturalists, but he did not give us the names of those men. Mr. 
Elliott, could you give us the names of those other naturalists and 
scientists who entertain opinions the same as yours? 

Mr. Elliott. Do you want me to prepare a list and submit it ? 

Mr. Goodwin. Yes; and put it in the record. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes ; that would be the best plan. 

Dr. Evekmann. The statements referred to above which I desire 
to embody as a part of the hearing are as follows : 

Dr. F. W. True, for many years head curator of biology, United 
States National Museum, now Assistant Secretary of the Smith- 
sonian Institution, and special investigator on the seal islands in 
1895, says: 

It does not appear to me that any serious concern need, be felt as regards 
the condition of the herd in 1903 and the prospects for the immediate future. 
It appe rs that in the breeding herd in 1903 there was approximately 1 bull 
to 42 cows. Should the increase in bulls and increase in cows continue in the 
same ratio in 1904 as in 1903, there would be approximately 1 bull to 54 
cows. I think that the decrease in bulls might proceed until there was only 
1 bull to 100 cows without menacing the welfare of the herd. If this view 
is correct, there is time for many years' observations before it would be 
imperatively necessary to take steps for the preservation of the herd from 
extinction. This is exactly what is needed most— carefully prepared statistics 
and data for a longer term of years than is now available. To obtain such 
information it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that a thoroughly com- 
petent naturalist should be located on the islands for a term of years. Indeed, 
I am strongly of the opinion that the department should consider the regular 
employment of a naturalist in connection with the fur-seal industry as indis- 
pensable. Time is an important element in the investigation of all such matters 
as the one in question, and in my opinion a commission which visits the 
islands for one season or two seasons can not get to the bottom of the subject 
from a practical point of view. 

I appreciate, of course, that a decrease in the actual number of breeding bulls 
for five consecutive years, as shown in the statistics of the agents, whatever 
it may signify, is a proper subject for administrative consideration. It seems 
to the department that something should be done for the purpose of increasing 
the number of bulls, or at least to cause the number to remain stationary. I 
recommend that the experiment be tried of compelling the lessees to reject a 
certain portion of " killable " seals, or those of three or four years, from every 
" pod " driven up, in addition to the old and young rejected ; the number of each 
age rejected should be carefully recorded. I call this an experiment, because it 
might have no effect in increasing the number of breeding bulls, .if it did not 
cause an increase, it would at least form a point of departure for other experi- 
ments. Not until after several such experiments were made, and the number 
of bulls had decreased much below the present proportion, would I recommend 
the entire cessation of killing young males on land. (True, in letter to Hitch- 
cock, Mar. 6, 1904.) 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTEE. 139 

The following extracts are taken from the report of the Bering Sea 
fur-seal investigations by David Starr Jordan, assisted by Leonard 
Stejneger, Frederic Augustus Lucas, and George Archibald Clark> 
1897. (Second Preliminary Report, Treasury Doc, 1994.) 

LAND KILLING AND THE DECLINE. 

No connection with the decline of the herd. 

The investigations of the present season have only served to confirm the con- 
clusion reacted last year, that killing, as practiced on land, has no connection 
whatever with the decline of the herd. Such killing is, and has been for half a 
century, confined to superfluous males, whose removal is a benefit rather than 
an injury. It would have been better for the herd if land killing had not been 
limited by the modus vivendi. The rookeries to-day are overstocked with adult 
bulls, which in their struggles to gain possession of the females tear them to 
pieces and trample their offspring. 

The only way in which land killing could injuriously affect the herd is 
through a reduction of the male life to a point below that required for propa- 
gation. The records of the islands show that there was never anything 
approaching a dearth of breeding bulls on the rookeries. The mere fact that 
14 years after the islands came into the possession of the United States 
approximately 100.000 seals were taken each year without difficulty shows that 
the usual birth rate was maintained. That the land killing was not connected 
with the decline of the herd at its beginning — about the years 1882-1885 — may 
reasonably be inferred from the fact that in the years 1876-77 only 175,000 
males were killed, whereas the total for 1875 and 187S was 215,000, and for the 
five years preceding and succeeding a like proportionate number was taken. 
(This included pups taken for food in the fall.) The 40.000 males thus saved 
out in 1876-77 were of breeding age in 1882 and were still in their prime in 
1885 and the subsequent years of decline. 

NUMBERS OF MALES SPARED. 

Again, it is impossible to connect the land killing with the greatest intensity 
of the decline in the years 1888-89 and subsequent years. In the years 1882-83 
25,000 less males were killed than in 1881 and 1884, or for five years before 
and after. These males, 3 years old in 1883, were ready to enter the rookeries 
in 1887 and were still in their prime in 1390. These were voluntary contrac- 
tions of the quota for commercial reasons and would have abundantly stocked 
the rookeries had no males been reserved from year to year, as was the case. 
It is, indeed, to be doubted whether at any time the killing on the islands 
could by any possibility be made close enough to endanger the supply of bulls. 
There are certain inaccessible hauling grounds, as Sivutch Rock, Otter Island, 
Zapadni Head, and Lagoon, from which bachelors are never driven, and which 
are in themselves probably sufficient to supply the necessary increment of 
bulls from year to year. There are, moreover, beyond doubt, many bachelors 
whose arrival is so late or whose stay is so short that they would escape from 
any danger of a drive. It is in fact by no means certain that all the bachelors 
actually visit the islands each year. 

CONTRAST BETWEEN BERING ISLAND AND THE PRIBILOFS. 

It is. furthermore, only necessary to contrast the conditions on Bering Island 
as described by Dr. Stejneger, in Appendix II on this report, with the history 
of the rookeries of the Pribilof Islands to see the absurdity of any claim that 
land killing could have affected the latter herd. The islands are at present 
grossly overstocked with bulls, and yet the average size of the harem is about 
30 cows. There is no reason to believe that a bull can not take care of 200 
cows, and the actual condition of south rookery of Bering Island shows that 
such is the case. 

THE CAUSE OF THE DECLINE — PELAGIC SEALING THE SOLE CAUSE. 

The sole cause of the decline of the fur-seal herd is found in pelagic sealing. 
This conclusion was reached last year, and a reconsideration of all the ques- 
tions involved gives no occasion to alter or modify it. The investigations of 



140 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

the season of 1897 only strengthen it. Pelagic sealing involves the indiscrimi- 
nate killing of males and females, the latter forming at all times the greater 
part of the pelagic catch. 

When we take into account the loss of the herd through old age and the small 
percentage of young which survive to breeding age, we find the margin of 
increase in the herd to be very small. The killing of females to any degree in 
excess of the annual increment of 3-year-old breeders must cause decline. Under 
pelagic sealing this increment has at all times since 1886 been vastly exceeded. 

Joseph Stanley-Brown, for many years resident on the seal islands 
as Treasury agent and later as agent for the North American Com- 
mercial Co., says : 

Can anyone successfully maintain that in case of polygamous animals the 
taking of the surplus male life and reserving the females can destroy the herd? 
If this can be demonstrated, then our stock raisers are at fault and the evi- 
dence derived from Russian management goes for naught. (Stanley-Brown, 
Bull. U. S. Fish Commission for 1893, p. 364.) 

Gerald E. H. Barrett-Hamilton, of Dublin, Ireland, British mem- 
ber of the Fur-Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, says : 

The fact that five bulls (possibly assisted by some large bachelors) could 
have between them 530 pups, or an average of 106 pups each, at the south rook- 
ery; that a single animal could copulate no less than six times in six hours; 
and finally that even the young bachelors should have in them such strong 
sexual instincts as to (disregarding for the moment the value to be attached 
to their services) be able to assist the bulls on the rookeries; all these clearly 
show the wonderful breeding power of the fur-seal bull and the attempts of 
the species to adapt itself to and overcome new and adverse conditions of exist- 
ence. (Barrett-Hamilton, report on his mission to the Russian seal islands in 
1897, p. 33.) 

Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, 
for many years naturalist on the Fisheries steamer Albatross, mem- 
ber of the Fur-Seal Commission of 1896 and 1897, and for nine 
seasons special investigator on the seal islands, says : 

My last visit to the islands was in the year 1900, when the number of sur- 
plus of nonbreeding males was much larger than it is now. At that time and 
for years before the number of large nonbreeding males in the rear of the 
breeding grounds was so large that I advised a closer degree of killing by the 
lessees than had been the custom. The slaughter of females by pelagic sealers 
had been for years very heavy and the relative number of breeding males was 
on the increase. The lessees were then taking only the skins of what we were 
accustomed to regard as 3-year-olds, weighing perhaps 9 pounds or over. As the 
younger class of males, unlike the breeding males, wander away from the islands 
at times to feed, I advised that the lessees be permitted to take the smaller 
4-year-olds. This was for the double purpose of increasing tbe catch by the 
lessees and decreasing the sea catch. This has naturally resulted in lessening 
the relative number of nonbreeding males. 

I am well acquainted with the present Government agents on the islands, 
having had them associated with me for several seasons, whiie making the 
annual counts of both male and female seals present. I accept the figures 
which they furnish, knowing that they come from conscientious and careful 
observers.. 

Your statistics show that there is still a margin of over 500 young idle bulls. 
This surplus has occurred naturally, and shows that the policy of close killing 
of males has been a safe one. 

As this surplus is decreasing from year to year, the time has evidently come 
to make provision for the saving of more breeding males. I would advise that 
the number taken by the lessees annually be curtailed and that the catch 
on land consist, as in former years, of practically 3-year-olds ; it may be pos- 
sible to add to this number a few of the larger 2-year-olds; certainly none 
of the larger size, i. e., those whose skins weigh over 9 pounds, should be 
taken. 

Your statistics do not show what proportion of the land catch consisted 
of seals over 3 years old. Your agents can furnish you that information. 



PROTECTION OF EUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 141 

Indeed, if you wish to secure an immediate increase in the number of sur- 
plus males, you might restrict the catch absolutely to 3-year-olds, This will 
cover the number required for food, and will give the lessees a chance to 
continue operations for two or three years on a small scale. 

I am not willing to admit that the danger point is reached until all idle 
bulls adjacent to the rookeries disappear. 

A complete cessation of killing would remedy such a condition very rapidly, 
but in order that your department may be provided against criticism, I would 
counsel an immediate curtailment in about the manner above described. A 
total cessation of killing would increase the number of males more rapidly 
than is necessary, and would simply add an important number of valuable 
male skins to the pelagic catch. 

As above stated, as long as there is a surplus of any kind the breeding 
grounds are safe. If there were any lack of adult males in the rookeries 
the so-called half bulls adjacent to the breeding grounds would at once be 
absorbed by the rookeries. 

This subject has received the most thorough study at different times during 
the last dozen years at the hands of the foremost biologists of this country, 
spending months on the islands. I don't believe that the natural history of 
any wild animal of commercial importance is as well known as that of the 
fur seal. 

The diminution of the fur seal is due to pelagic sealing. It is worse than 
idle to attribute it in any way to our management of the islands. 

I am not in sympathy with the measures set forth in the " Senate bill " 
referred to. It is not necessary to entirely cease killing males on land, for the 
reasons stated above. I would not for a single instant be party to any pro- 
posed killing of females. It would be an utterly immoral proceeding. We 
have no right to destroy the source of supply of anything useful to man 
simply because we can not control all the output. 

Negotiations looking toward the cessation of pelagic sealing is the only 
logical and moral cure for the decrease of the seal herd. The killing of 
females on the islands must never be permitted. (Townsend, in letter to 
F. H. Hitchcock, Mar. 7, 1904.) 

Edwin W. Sims, United States attorney for northern district of 
Illinois, Solicitor Department of Commerce and Labor, and special 
investigator on the seal islands in 1906, says : 

DECREASE IN SEAL LIFE DUE SOLELY TO PELAGIC SEALING. 

That the decrease in seal life on the Pribilof Islands is due solely to pelagic 
sealing can not bo seriously questioned. " Owing to the polygamous habit of 
fur seals," states the report of the Jordan Commission, " the greater part of 
the male life born is superfluous for breeding purposes. For the 130,000 
breeding cows found on the rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands in 
the season of 1897, 4,418 bulls were adequate, or at least out of fully 10,000 
bulls ready and willing to serve harems only this number were able to obtain 
them. Therefore, only one bull in thirty is absolutely necessary under present 
conditions. That this limit could be materially lowered without positive danger 
to the herd, is conclusively shown by the history of the Russian herd on Bering 
Island, where the observations of the past three years, as detailed by Dr. 
Stejneger, show that a male fur seal is capable of attending to the wants of 
between 100 and 200 cows." (Report of Fur Seal Investigations, 1S96-97, 
pt. 1, p. 119.) 

There never has been a time since this Government came into control of 
the herd when there were no idle bulls on the islands. It is manifest, 
therefore, that the decrease in the herd is due to the killing of females, which 
are taken only by pelagic sealers. The number of idle bulls present on the 
islands is a matter which has afready been carefully watched. Three years 
ago, when it became apparent that there was a decrease in idle bulls, the 
department established regulations whereby 2,000 choice 2 and 3 year old males 
were selected, branded, and dismissed from the herd for breeding purposes 
before the company commenced taking its quota for commercial purposes. 
This action was not due to an entire absence of idle bulls, but was taken solely 
because they were decreasing in numbers. Furthermore, the result of the 



142 PROTECTION OF fur seals and sea otter. 

regulation is already apparent, and as soon as the seals thus reserved reach 
the breeding age the number of idle bulls on the island will have again reached 
a safe margin. 

UNNECESSARY AND INEXPEDIENT TO STOP LAND KILLING. 

Regardless of whether the Government concludes to again lease the sealing 
privilege or to itself conduct the sealing industry, it is manifest that the land 
killing of seals should not be stopped. It is neither necessary nor expedient. 
It is unnecessary, for the reason that there is no abnormal shortage in male 
seals which are killed on land, and it is not expedient for the reason that if no 
Alaskan fur-seal skins are secured it will result in the substitution of some- 
thing else. The two companies which have operated on the islands under 
lease from the Government have spent thousands of dollars in building up 
the seal fur trade. The first company which secured this right was for some 
years unable to profitably dispose of its annual catch because there was no 
demand for fur-seal skins. Fur-seal skins are now, and have been for a 
number of years past, in demand because it is now and has been the fashion 
to wear them. The fashion controls the demand. 

REDUCTION OF HERD TO A BREEDING NUCLEUS UNDESIRABLE. 

The suggestion not infrequently made in recent years that this Government 
authorized the killing of all save a breeding nucleus of a few hundred seals 
as a means of stopping pelagic sealing is neither sensible nor humane. In the 
first place, if left alone the pelagic sealers will accomplish this result in a 
very short time; and, in the second place, it would not settle the question. 
Just as soon as the herd increased to a size sufficient to make land killing 
permissible and profitable, pelagic sealing would be profitable, and the question 
would again be an open one. (Sims's Report on the Alaska Fur-Seal Fisheries, 
1906, pp. 27-29.) 

George A. Clark, secretary, Stanford University; secretary fur- 
seal commissions of 1896 and 1897; special investigator (for the 
Government), on the seal islands in 1909, says: 

I do not see that Mr. Elliott's contention that the land killing has yet en- 
dangered the breeding herd, or is likely to in the near future, is worthy of 
serious consideration. The very fact that the herd has supplied a quota of 
from 20,000 to 15,000 skins each year since 1896 is in itself proof that there 
has been no lack of breeding males for the rookeries. That there should be a 
decline in the quota must be conceded, but the cause of this is naturally to be 
sought in the killing of breeding females, with the attendant loss of young 
through starvation and otherwise due to pelagic sealing. * (Clark in letter to 
Hitchcock, Dec. 30, 1903.) 

No naturalist has enjoyed better opportunities for studying fur-seal problems 
than Las Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology in the United States 
National Museum. After living for several years on the Commander Islands, 
where he carefully studied the Russian seal rookeries, he again returned to 
those islands in 1897 as a member of the fur-seal commission and made very 
exhaustive investigations on the rookeries and hauling grounds. He also 
visited and carefully studied the Japanese seal rookeries and our own seal 
islands. No one is better qualified by ability as a biologist or by experience to 
speak authoritatively on the various fur-seal questions. 

From Dr. Stejneger's official report on the rookeries of the Com- 
mander Islands, season of 1897, page 16, I quote the following: 

IS A TEMPORARY STOPPAGE OF LAND KILLING ADVISABLE? 

The propriety of prohibiting the killing of fur seals on land for a period of 
five years, as a means of building up the seal herd, has of late been discussed 
by the Russian authorities. The success in former years of such a cessation of 
killing on land, or " zapuska," as it is called, as well as its advantage in the 
management of the fox and sea otter hunt, have undoubtedly influenced them; 
but they have plainly failed to see the difference between these old zapuskas, 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 143 

which protected the females as well as the males, and the zapuska of the 
present, the employment of which would only mean the protection of the males 
alone when on land. When at sea they would be subjected to the same danger 
from the pelagic hunter of the females. It shows that they have utterly failed 
to grasp the two essential points of the seal question as it stands to-day, viz, 
that the decline, of the seal herd is solely due to pelagic sealing, and that the 
increase and consequent rehabilitation of the herd depends solely upon the 
preservation of the male seals. It pelagic sealing be stopped no zapuska is 
necessary, or, as I shall show, it will be directly hurtful. If pelagic sealing 
be continued a zapuska .will not only not protect the herd on shore, but it will 
directly result in increased catches for the pelagic sealers as long as the 
zapuska lasts, since they will have the additional males to pray upon, which 
will have to be spared on land. 

Now, the future prosperity of the seal herd depends upon the number of 
females it contains; the number of bachelors is irrelevant in this connection. 
Suppose pelagic sealing be suppressed and a five years' zapuska instituted on 
the Commander Islands; what would result? At the end of the five years there 
would be exactly as many females as if no zapuska had been, not one more 
(possibly some less), because no female seals would have been killed even if 
the zapuska had not been kept. But there certainly would be a great many 
more killable seals at the beginning of the sixth year than during any one of 
the preceding years. A little reflection, however, will show that their total 
number must be less than the total sum of killed ones, during these preceding 
years, inasmuch as the 2 to 4 years' old bachelors of these years would have 
escaped the killing and become sikatchi — that is, available rookery bulls, and 
consequently unfit for killing during the zapuska. And how would it look on 
the rookeries? Copper Island is already overstocked with bulls to such an 
extent that it would greatly benefit the herd to decimate them now ; with a 
five years' zapuska the conditions would be infinitely worse. On Bering Island 
there is no overstocking of males now, but there is uothing to indicate that 
there are now enough bulls, and five years' prohibition would bring about the 
same deplorable condition as on Copper Island ; in fact, the result would be 
more disastrous, for the nature of the rookery beach on Bering Island is much 
less favorable to the pups in protecting them from being trampled to death. 

To sum up, a zapuska as contemplated would result in (1) no addition of a 
single female to the herd; (2) loss in the total number of killables; (3) highly 
injurious overstocking of the rookeries with fighting males; and (4) a conse- 
quent heavy loss of young pups killed shortly after birth. A zapuska without 
total stoppage of pelagic sealing would be even more senseless, as the females 
would continue to decrease at a much greater rate than the males, more females 
than males being killed at sea, and the resultant overstocking of the rookeries 
with bulls would be even more disproportionate and more disastrous. 

That these conditions are not mere fanciful theories is plainly shown by our 
experience on the Pribilof Islands. As soon as the falling off in the catch of 
the bachelors called attention to the decrease of the seal herd a bait was 
called; the killing on land was reduced to a minimum. The temporary officials 
were then under the same erroneous impression as the Russian authorities 
now, viz, that the calamity consisted in the decrease of the bachelors, and they 
overlooked that it was the females, and they only, that needed being looked 
after. For several years only a fraction of the killable seals was allowed to be 
taken. What was the result? A single additional female on the rookeries? 
No ; loss to the lessees and the Government of the bachelors spared ; a corre- 
sponding gain to the pelagic sealers; a deplorable superabundance of bulls on 
the Pribilof rookeries, and numerous pups trampled to death soon after their 
birth. America has thus paid very dearly for her blunder. Are the Russians 
going to repeat it? 

The following article was written by Mr. George A. Clark and 
was published in the Popular Science Monthly for November, 1910. 

Mr. Clark is thoroughly familiar with the fur-seal question in all 
its ramifications. This article, written by Mr. Clark soon after his 
return from a season's careful study on the islands, covers all the 
essential questions so fully and fairly that I desire to incorporate it 
in my statement. 



144 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

The article is as follows: 

THE MUCH MISTHSTDERSTOOD FUR SEALS OF BERING SEA. 

m 

The public press lias recently engaged in a spirited discussion of the affairs 
of the fur seals of Bering Sea which is remarkable for the popular misap- 
prehension it discloses of the real facts of this problem, which has been before 
the public as a national and international issue for a quarter of a century. 
The recent discussion was precipitated by certain criticisms, by the Camp Fire 
Club of New York, made against an order of the Searetary of Commerce and 
Labor for the killing of the annual quota of young male seals during the current 
season. The order of the Secretary was not a new or unusual one. A similar 
order has been given each season for the 40 years in which the herd of the 
Pribilof Islands has been in the control of the United States, and was in vogue 
for the half century or more of Russian control. 

This order called for the killing of 8,000 of the superfluous young males to 
secure their skins. It is the way in which the Government harvests the product 
of its fur-seal herd. The order is exactly analogous to one which the owner 
of a herd of 100,000 cattle might give to his agents to drive up and slaughter 
for market 8,000 young steers. Other analogies might be found in the methods 
of handling sheep, poultry, or any other of our domestic animals from which 
we derive food or raw material of value and utility. 

The fur seal is a polygamous animal, a fact which the Camp Fire Club seems 
to overlook. Actual enumeration shows that 29 out of every 30 males born are 
superfluous for breeding purposes. A reasonable proportion of these 29 may be 
killed for commercial uses without injury to the herd, and their withdrawal 
will have no more effect on the life of the herd than the killing of a like number 
of steers would have on a herd of cattle. 

Moreover, it is not merely feasible and safe to take these animals, but it is 
beneficial to the herd that they should be removed. To let these young males 
grow up to adult age would precipitate a condition of fighting and struggle 
on the rookeries whicb would be injurious in a high degree to the welfare of 
the herd. To illustrate by another analogy, the condition which their exemption 
from killing would produce on the fur-seal rookeries would be exactly like 
that which would exist on the cattle range if all the young male calves and 
colts were allowed to grow up as bulls and stallions to contest with one another 
the supremacy of the herd. 

The adult male fur seal is five times the size of the adult female and forty 
times the size of the young pup of a week old. In the struggles of the bull to de- 
fend his harem from other bulls, the young are trampled under foot and the 
mothers torn to pieces. This condition was very conspicuous on the rookeries 
in 1896-97, when 5,000 haremless idle bulls fought throughout the season with 
the 5,000 active bulls in charge of harems. This unfortunate condition in 
1896-97 was due to exactly what the Camp Fire Club would have repeated at the 
present time. In 1891, 1892, and 1893 there was a modus vivendi. pending the 
action of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration, which restricted the killing on land to 
a few thousand seals for natives' food. The majority of the young males were 
allowed to escape and grow up as idle bulls, a source of injury and loss to the 
herd until eliminated by death in contests with one another or by old age. It 
Is in the light of this experience and with a view to obviating its repetition 
that the order of the Secretary for the killing of the superfluous young males 
becomes not merely good business policy but beneficial to the herd. 

The criticism of the Camp Fire Club calls attention to the precarious condi- 
tion of the herd, which is an admitted fact and one of grave concern. The 
mistake is in the implication that the order of the department has anything 
to do with this condition. As a matter of fact the greatly depleted condition 
of the herd of fur seals is due to an entirely different cause, fully demonstrated 
and easily understood. 

The fur seal gets all its food in the open sea at great distances from land. It 
resorts to the land only to bring forth and nourish its young to self-dependence. 
It is resident for this purpose on certain islands in Bering Sea from May to 
November. The mother seal goes 150 to 200 miles from the rookery to find her 
food, leaving her young behind, returning to nurse it and again go away to feed. 
With the storms of winter all classes of animals leave the islands and make a 
long migration down through the Pacific Ocean to the latitude of southern 
California, returning slowly along the coast. 



PROTECTION OF R T E SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 145 

It had been the custom of the Indians of the northwest coast of America 
from the earliest times to go out in their canoes a day's journey to hunt with 
the spear stragglers from the migrating herd on its northward journey. It was 
a precarious business and the number of animals taken was unimportant. In 
1S79, however, sailing vessels began to be used to take the Indians and their 
canoes out to the main body of the herd and to enable them to follow its course.- 
This new form of sealing was very successful. The fleet grew in numbers and 
the catch multiplied until it reached the total of 140.000 skins in a single season. 
The operations of the fleet gradually extended over the entire migration route 
of the seals and included their summer feeding grounds in Bering Sea. 

The males being reduced in numbers by land killing, the females predominated 
in the herd as found at sea. On land the young males are forced to herd by 
themselves through fear of the adult males. They can be readily distinguished 
and handled without disturbance to the breeding herd. At sea the sexes can 
not be distinguished. On the spring migration the mother seal is heavy with 
young and hence less swift in her movements. On the summer feeding grounds 
she must feed regularly and heavily through necessity of nourishing her young. 
As a result the pelagic catch is made up chiefly of the breeding females. In- 
vestigations of tbe pelagic catches of 1895 and 1896 disclosed the fact that 65 to 
85 per cent of its skins were taken from gravid and nursing females. The 
young of these mother seals died unborn or of starvation on the rookeries. 
The writer counted 16.000 young fur-seal pups which died of starvation on the 
rookeries of the Pribilof Islands in the fall of 1S96 as a result of pelagic 
scaling for that season. In 1809 he found by actual count that 13.5 per cent of 
the birth rate for that season were dead or dying of starvation in August of 
that year. From 1879 to the present time this hunting of gravid and nursing 
females has gone steadily on, with the consequence that the herd of fur seals 
belonging to the United States has been reduced from 2,500,000 animals to less 
than 150.000 animals. 

No other result could be expected from this wasteful and indiscriminate 
slaughter. It is not necessary to look for other causes, this cause is more 
than sufficient. To return to our analogy, suppose the owner of a cattle range 
should allow the slaughter of 65 to 85 per cent of his breeding cows with the 
consequent loss of their offspring. It would simply mean the ruin of the herd 
of cattle, and pelagic sealing has in like manner brought ruin on the fur-seal 
herd. 

This cause of decline was established for the Government in 189S by a com- 
mission of scientific experts. It was pointed out that only by the establish- 
ment of an international game law for the high seas which should protect the 
female fur seal — in other words, the abolition of pelagic sealing — could the. 
herd be preserved and restored. The property involved is a very important 
one. The fur-seal herd during the first 20 years of its ownership by the United 
States yielded to the Government a revenue of $13,500,000, almost twice the 
sum paid for the Territory of Alaska. If the conditions of these 20 years 
held true for to-day — and they would remain true were it not for pelagic seal- 
ing — the herd would now be bringing to the Government an annual income 
of $1,000,000. 

In the period of 14 years since the exact relation of pelagic sealing to the 
reduced condition of the herd was demonstrated to our Government this 
wasteful and inhuman form of hunting has gone on season by season without 
interruption. A total of 200.000 gravid and nursing females 'have been taken 
from the breeding stock of the herd. The skins of these animals have been 
. marketed by the pelagic sealers at an average price of $15 per skin, a total 
loss in cash to the Government of $3,000,000, with an actual loss through 
breeding possibilities of 10 times this amount, as the breeding life of the female 
fur seal is at least 10 seasons. 

There is abundant ground here for legitimate criticism of our governmental 
policy in dealing with this valuable industry. There is no occasion to invent 
grounds of criticism such as those urged against the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor for a harmless detail of administration. . The responsibility does 
not, however, rest entirely with the United States. . The fur-seal question is 
an international issue. The flags of Japan and Great Britain protect the de- 
structive and suicidal industry of pelagic sealing— an industry which is also 
on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of the failure of the herd, for it preys 
on its own capital. Russia also owns an important fur-seal herd, which has 
22875—12 10 



146 PROTECTION OF FUE SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 

suffered and is suffering in exactly the same way that the herd of the United 
States has suffered and is suffering. It is the business of these two nations — 
owners of fur-seal herds — to effect an understanding with the two nations which 
stand sponsor for the pelagic industry, to the end that the wasteful slaughter 
may cease. 

Surely the abolition of pelagic sealing, which means the hunting of gravid 
'and nursing female fur seals — exactly analogous to the hunting of the gravid 
doe or the^broodiug quail— is a cause which should appeal to and enlist the 
support of the sportsmen of the Camp Fire Club and all lovers of animals the 
world over. Every influence of criticism and assistance that can be brought 
to bear should bedirected toward the four great nations — the United States. 
Great Britain, Russia, and Japan — having responsibility for this matter, to the 
end that this valuable race of animals, the fur seals of Bering Sea,, shall be 
saved to the world. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF PROF. HENRY W. ELLIOTT. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Dr. 
Evermann has read to you an extract from my testimony, given to 
a House committee in 1888, which declares that I then had no ob- 
jection to the land killing as it was then conducted and is to-day. 

That is a statement which I made in good faith, as I had stated 
it in my report of 1874, and 14 years after I had surveyed the work 
officially. 

But when I again visited the islands in 1890 my studies then 
opened my eyes to the fact that I had been mistaken in my opinion 
of 1874, and. as quoted by Dr. Evermann, I called attention to this 
fact in my report, of 1890 to the Secretary of the Treasury: that I 
was wrong in my theory of 1874; that the work done during the 16 
years which had elapsed between 1874 and 1890 had satisfied me of 
my error. So, Mr. Chairman, I myself called attention to my own 
error and corrected it in this report. (See Report, on Present Con- 
dition of the Fur Seal Rookeries of Alaska. H. Doc. Xo. 175. 54th 
Cong., 1st sess., pp. 5-15.) 

I was on the wrong side then, and I am one of those who do not 
believe it is more creditable to stay consistently wrong than to admit 
an error and publish the same. I surely am on both sides, but that 
only shows to you that I have left the wrong side in 1874. and taken 
the right position in 1890, and since then, Mr. Chairman. I have 
remained there. Why does Dr. Evermaiin not do the same? It 
would be far more creditable for him. 

Then, too, reading those garbled extracts of my translations of 
Bishop Veniaminov as Mr. Lembkey has done, without reading my 
review of these literal translations in which, on page 143 of my 
monograph, from which those extracts were read, I made this sig- 
nificant and fair statement of what I thought of the same, to wit : 

I translate this chapter of Veniaminov's without abridgment, although, it is 
full of errors, to show that while the Russians gave this matter, evidently, 
much thought at headquarters yet they failed to send some one onto the ground 
who by first making himself acquainted with the habits of the seals from close 
observation of their lives, etc. 

Why did Mr. Lembkey fail to read the above ? The idea of making 
me responsible for a series of loose statements that I literally credit 
to another man, and expressly define them as such, is, I submit to 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 147 

the committee, a suppression of the truth by Mr. Lembkey himself, 
and he, not I, is guilty of that offense. 

One word more. It has been said over and over again that I am 
practically alone in my contention, and that all naturalists save my- 
self approve of this position taken by Dr. Jordan and his associates. 
To thus prove the contrary, I will prepare and give to the committee 
a list of better men who as naturalists do not agree with Dr. Ever- 
mann and his Jordan commission associates, Ayhom he has just 
enumerated to you, with a florid introduction of each as to his ac- 
complishments. 

Directly to the contrary, the overwhelming sentiment of all natur- 
alists at home and abroad is against this idle theory of Dr. Jordan, 
who assumes that he knows enough to improve upon the natural 
law which the Creator has established for the reproduction and the 
best life of the fur seal of Alaska. 

Mr. Bartholdt. Mr. Chairman, I desire to submit a statement 
prepared by an expert in the employ of Funston Bros., which I 
would like to have incorporated in the record. The scientific opin- 
ions expressed in this statement coincide exactly with those presented 
by Mr. Lembkey and Dr. Evermann : 

Among all of the national resources which the Government is doing its best 
to conserve, one of the most important is the conservation of the fur-seal herd. 

It has been contended by some who are not familiar with seal life that it 
was necessary to maintain a closed season for five years by discontinuing the 
annual kill of surplus male seals by the Government. Any one who would 
make such a contention either is not familiar with seal life, or is making the 
contention from«a selfish standpoint. 

The seal- is polygamous by nature. One bull usually takes care of from 20 
to SO cows in his harem. The male seal herd usually hauls up on the Pribilof 
Islands about the first or second week of May each year, and always comes 
to the islands three or four days ahead of the female herd. 

As soon as the males arrive there commences a battle between them for 
supremacy and the best location for their respective harems. The younger 
and weaker male seals are therefore driven back on the islands, temporarily 
at least, with the old strong bulls in possession of the coast* front, where the 
female herd is shortly to land. 

As soon as the female herd comes in sight there is a terrific barking and 
roaring of the male seal herd on the islands. The females come up and find 
their mates; and the strange part of their life is that the females seem to 
recognize the call of their mates and go direct to their lord and master. 

The younger females that come to the islands to breed for the first time 
select their mates of their own free will and choosing — whichever male is the 
best looking to her she selects, and thereafter that mate is hers and she is a 
member of his harem. 

Though the seal is polygamous by nature, it is a peculiar fact that the 
females recognize their mates each year at breeding time. It is seldom that 
they select any other mate as long as their mate lives. But should one male 
be displaced by another in the fighting that goes on continually during the 
breeding season, the victor is acknowledged king of that particular harem. 
It seems that nature has wisely provided that the sire should be the survival 
of the fittest. 

Within three to five days after the female herd arrives on the islands the 
pup seals are born, and from five to ten days thereafter they are again bred. 
Shortly after, the females start out periodically to their feeding grounds, which 
are some 160 miles distant from the islands. It is then that the pelagic sealer, 
or poacher, commits his awful depredations on the female herd. 

It is seldom, if ever, that the pelagic sealer gets the opportunity of killing 
the male seals, but they lie in wait for the female herd on the way to their 
feeding grounds and slaughter in the open sea as many as they can. In killing 
these female seals, which have just been bred, they are practically killing two 



148 'protection of fur seals and sea otter. 

seals. They are also doing worse than that, for a certain percentage of the 
young seals that the mothers have left on the islands die from want of proper 
attention of the mother, which has been killed by the pelagic sealer. 

It is absolutely necessary to kill each year a certain percentage of the male 
or bachelor herd, as it is termed, because the continuous battles among the 
males for supremacy disturbs the breeding and kills many of the young. On 
account of the polygamous nature of the seal it is only necessary to have a 
small percentage of males, and if the male herd is allowed to accumulate to 
an equal quantity of the females it would only mean that the males would be 
killing each other, and in the battles kill a large percentage of the young. 

It is furthermore desirable that the 2 and 3 year old bachelor seals be killed, 
because skins taken from the bull seals after tbey are 4 or 5 years old are 
worthless for seal-skin purposes. They can not be dressed and dyed success- 
fully on account of the coarse, undesirable quality of the fur. 

It is also equally important not to kill a male seal until after it is past 1 year 
old. Skins taken from seals before they are a year old have no value for 
commercial purposes as fur seals, because they do not take the dye end have 
not the quality necessary for that purpose. They are known as '.'gray pups." 
A certain percentage of yearling seals are allowed to the natives on the islands 
each year for food purposes, and they can do what they please with the skins. 
They usually use these "gray-pup" skins to make their parkeys and other 
articles of wearing apparel. So that the claim recently made that the Gov- 
ernment was killing seals before they were a year old is absolutely without 
foundation. 

In view of the above facts, it can be seen that it is necessary to kill the 
2 and 8 year old bachelor seals. If a closed season were instituted, in five 
years time it would mean that these 2 and 3 ye::r old seals would be worthless 
for commercial purposes. It would mean a loss of millions of dollars to the 
Government, besides doing more to deplete the herd on account of constant 
warfare going on among the males at breeding time, and the slaughter of The 
young as a result. 

The thing that will do more to conserve the se.l herd than anything that 
has ever been done, or ever will be done in the history of seal life, is the passage 
of the treaty between Russia, Japan, England, and America, which prohibits 
and prevents pelagic sealing entirely for a period of 15 years. This is some- 
thing that this Government has been striving for for many years and during 
many administrations, but its accomplishment is due more directly to the 
splendid work of Secretary Nagel. 

Secretary Nagel has made a personal study of seal life, ami great credit is 
due him and his department for the intelligent, fearless, and correct work that 
has been done in handling the killing of the seals, as well as the negotiations 
of the seal treaty. 

It is stated by every reliable authority on seal life that the killing of a 
certain percentage of the bachelor herd, as the Government is doing and doing 
wiselv, should be continued. 

Under the new treaty, pelagic sealing will be stopped for a period of ID years 
after December. 1911. With this accomplished, it is stated by experts on seal 
life that within 10 years time it will be absolutely necessary for the Govern- 
ment to kill at least 50,000 2 and 3 year old male seals every year, and, many 
thousand more each year thereafter. 

The discontinuance of pelagic sealing is the only thing that wdl conserve 
the seal herd. A closed season for five years, which has been advocated by 
some who are not familiar with seal life, would be the very worst thing that 
• could happen to the seal herd, besides a loss to the Government of million's of 
dollars a's a result of not killing and marketing a percentage of the bachelor 
seals, as it is now doing. . 

It is only last year that the Government has had complete control of the seal 
herd and the disposition of the sealskins. For the past 40 years the islands 
have been under lease to a commercial company, which has disposed or the 
sealskins during that time in London through an English house. Last year 
was th« first time the Government had tbe authority of. disposing of the seal 
catch in the open market. And the skins were sent to London as usual, to be 
sold for account of this Government, by the same English house that had 
handled the seals for many years for the private company. M lia^u^ 

But with pelagic sealing stopped entirely, the Government is consideiin^, 
having the seals sold at auction in an American fur market, on the theory that 



PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 149 

all American people indorse — "America for Americans.*' It ought to be the 
policy of the American Government to foster American industry and not 
deliberately ship an American product all the way across the United States 
to be exported to a foreign country, to be sold by a foreign house in a foreign 
market for account of the American Government, when the seals could be sold 
in an American market by an American house for account of the Government 
to just as good, or better, advantage. 

Secretary Nagel himself is a great believer in protecting American commerce, 
and it is known that his views are favorable to a policy of having the seal- 
skins sold in an American market by an American house, in preference to 
consigning them to an English house in an English market. 

As soon as the Government announces its policy that it will have its seal- 
skins sold in an American market by an American house for account of the 
Government, it will bring to this country the best seal-dyeing houses that are 
now located in Europe. In fact, the most successful sealskin dyer and dresser 
in the world has already announced his intention of coming to this country 
to locate sbould tbe Government decide to sell the seals in tbis country. 

The pelagic seals, known in tbe London market as the northwest coast seals, 
but which come from Alaska, have always supplied the European markets, 
while 90 per cent of the Alaska sealskins taken by the Government are con- 
sumed in the United States ; and when they are brought back to this country 
it is necessary for the American people to pay 20 per cent duty on the dressed 
and dyed sealskin, which is unfair to the American people. 

If the sealskins are sold in an American market, with the dressing and 
dyeing plant located in America, it will mean that sealskins can be had for 
less money by the consumer, and at as much net money to the Government. 

The Government's policy of selling the sealskins in an American market 
means that on account of the Alaska seal herd being the largest herd of seals 
in the world, as well as the most valuable, it will transfer the sealskin market 
of the world from London. England, to the United States, besides bringing to 
this country the new industry of sealskin dressing and dyeing. 

Furthermore, the Government will be showing great wisdom and foresight in 
having the sealskins sold in an American market, because within 10 years' time 
't will be selling upwards of 50,000 sealskins annually, instead of about 10,000 to 
12,000, as it is now: within 15 years it will be selling 100,000 sealskins annually. 
This will mean that the American market will be the sealskin market of the 
world and will attract to it all of the other seals from different parts of the 
world, such as the Copper Island, tbe Cape Horn, the Lobos Island, and Shet- 
land Island seals. 

It is simply an opportunity of changing the seal market of the world from 
England to America. This is a fact generally conceded in the fur trade of 
America and by experts who know. It is also conceded by those best posted 
In the American fur trade that the seals will sell at as high prices in an 
American market as in a foreign market — at less expense to the Government, 
and therefore with a better net result. It also will mean that the American 
people, who are the largest consumers of Alaska seals, will not have to pay a 
20 per cent ad valorem duty on the dressed skin which is a product of their 
own country, and which is signally unfair to them. 

It is to be hoped that the Government will see the wisdom and foresight of 
selling the Alaska seals in this country in the future continuously. Such an 
act would be conserving American commerce, which would undoubtedly re- 
dound to the credit of the Government, and an act which would be applauded 
by the whole American people. 

The loss to the Government of the United States would be not less than 
$10,000,000 and it might reach fifteen million if the Rothermel resolution, pro- 
hibiting the killing of fur seals in Alaskan waters for a period of 15 years, were 
adopted by Congress. This statement is predicated on the assumption that the 
fur-seal convention, to become effective December 15. will be ratified. 

What is more, the adoption of the Rothermel resolution would not result in 
a conservation of the fur-seal herd — the object sought to be accomplished. 
Experience abundantly proves that it is not only wise but absolutely necessary 
to kill the superfluous young males every year if the herd is to be preserved. 
During the years of 1S96 and 1S97, when the superfluous males were not killed, 
thousands of young seals were trampled under foot and their mothers were torn 
to pieces in the mad struggles that took place for control of the harems. 



150 PROTECTION OF FUR SEALS AND SEA OTTER. 






The loss to tlie Government of between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 that would 
result from the adoption of the Rothermel resolution is based upon the following 
estimates : 

Revenue from the sale of 13,000 seals annually for 15 years $7, 290, 000 

Twenty per cent ad valorem duty 1, 45S, 000 

Maintenance of notices, etc., on Pribilof Islands annually for 15 

years 9-18, 450 

Advance payments to Great Britain and Japan 400,000 

Payments to Great Britain and Japan in 15 years with killing sus- 
pended :__ _ 300, 000 

Total 10, 366, 450 

The foregoing estimate of $7,290,000, as stated, represented the revenue that 
would be derived by the Government if the annual sale were 13,000 skins for a 
period of 15 years. As a matter of fact, with pelagic sealing stopped, as it will 
be if the fur-seal convention is ratified and goes into effect December 15, the 
increase in the seal herd will be so rapid that the number of superfluous males 
available for commercial purposes will be doubled before many years have 
passed, and, of course, the revenue will increase in proportion. 



l£% 



'\2 



